3 If we organize the above dynamical system into several "force" concepts, what would it be like?
Pressure from the environment or from outside civilizations or forces (which we call external forces).
Creative Minority Capabilities. A shift in the energy of creative faculties.
capacity as the susceptibility and comprehension of many imitators.
Self-development capacity of the inner proletariat.
Self-development capacity of the external proletariat.
How to judge a challenge is a matter of "value", and in the sense of responding to "value" efficiently and systematically, there are two main types: "efficient technical ability" and "social organization ability". I think.
And these forces, being forces, will also have counteracts.
Internal proletariat, external proletariat, world empire against environmental control
World Churches, Fighting Groups as counteracting forces against It
These can be thought of as different forms of social organizing power.
Therefore, I would like to cite 1 value, 2 efficient technical power, 3 social organizational power, 4 reaction, and 5 external power as the minimum form of the concept of force in social science. And add "time" to it. These forces change over time. Wallerstein's conception could be included as an example of an external force that influences these forces. In reality, there are various forces at work in this human society, but I have tentatively extracted these forces from among these various forces.
Braudel aside, Wallerstein's theory seems to be more spatial than temporal. Wallerstein's time axis is, for example, the A phase and the B phase*1, and the world system is assumed to be a movement between the central country, semi-peripheral countries, and peripheral countries. Therefore, the dependency theory is accepted, and the stage of development theory is not accepted. it may be correct. However, from the perspective of the emergence and growth of capitalism, Tadao Umesao's Ecological Historical View of Civilization seems to make good use of Marx's materialist historical view. There was a region where capitalism naturally arose and developed (transitioned), and along with that came the central country, semi-peripheral countries, and peripheral countries. In other words, movements have arisen in semi-peripheral and peripheral countries.
※１The Kondratiev cycle is the basic cycle of expansion and stagnation in the capitalist world/economy. One cycle, which consists of the so-called A phase "expansion period" and B phase "stagnation period", generally has a length of about 50 to 60 years.
Western Europe and Japan had undergone an ecological transition from feudalism to capitalism, while other regions were formed as empires rooted not in feudalism but in domestic farming and pastoralism. Based on this way of thinking, Marx's materialistic view of history is not necessarily connected to the theory of the stages of development, and capitalism is a phenomenon that occurred specifically in Europe and Japan. The central country, the semi-peripheral country, the peripheral country, the A phase, and the B phase are the concepts taken up by Wallerstein, but Umesao believes that the former empire, which is not a capitalist country, can achieve economic development with an approach different from that of democracy.
Wallerstein's theory seems to address the quantitative (such as the volume of trade) rather well from the standpoint of quality and quantity*. However, from the perspective of history and futurology, it seems that there are still many blank areas in how to predict "quality" and "essence." Why, then, is Toynbee's theory of civilization capable of predicting something qualitative? That's because Toynbee's theory is vague, but it's also qualitative and dynamic.
All rights reserved to M Ariake
