In How the West Came to Rule, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nişancıoğlu offer an alternative to both Political Marxism and world-systems analysis (WSA) by going beyond the nation-state as the unit of analysis in the former and the marginalisation of articulation and combination between modes of production in the latter. Their account also gives more room to non-European actors neglected in other interpretations of the rise of the West. However, I argue that their argument is much closer to WSA and that their critique of Wallerstein regarding Eurocentrism, the origins of capitalism and the role of wage labour in the capitalist world-system is problematic. Furthermore, Anievas and Nişancıoğlu do not offer a sufficiently rigorous definition of combination, leading to an overextension of the concept.
AllinsonJamie C. and AlexanderAnievas2010‘Approaching “The International”: Beyond Political Marxism’ in Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism edited by AlexanderAnievasLondon: Routledge.
Chase-DunnChristopher and MarilynGrell-Brisk 2016‘Uneven and Combined Development in the Sociocultural Evolution of World-Systems’ in Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée edited by AlexanderAnievas and KamranMatinLondon: Rowman & Littlefield.
WallersteinImmanuel1988‘Feudalism, Capitalism, and the World-System in the Perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean: Comments on Stern’s Critical Tests’The American Historical Review934: 873–885.
WallersteinImmanuel2011‘Prologue to the 2011 Edition’ in The Modern World System I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth CenturyBerkeley: University of California Press.