Disengagement..Autarchic or engagement with national control?

Today, more than ever before, the world has become a small cosmopolitan village as a result of the information, communication and communication revolution that humanity is witnessing under a globalized capitalist system that has turned itself into passive peripheries and active centers. In the context of the existing global capitalist polarization, peripheral countries suffer from double backwardness; they are both technologically and structurally backward. Thus, find themselves faced with the challenge of this complex backwardness, both in the field of productive forces and in the field of relations of production. The challenge of underdevelopment, in the first field, requires engagement in world system centers through capitalist market mechanisms, prevalent there and at the global level. In addition, the challenge of backwardness, in the second field, requires disengagement with these centers in order to build new non-capitalist relations of production, as a structural condition necessary to ensure the development of productive forces with local resources and competences. This will soon lead to the disconnection of dependency linkages, and thus national control over the engagement itself. Hence, the engagement is a necessary element for disengagement, which does not mean autarchic, in any case. As a result, logically and objectively, the dialectics of engagement and disengagement are connected organically to the dialectics of market and planning, in a way that is related to the need of developing the productive forces and building the productive relations with a different essence.

Capitalism Globalization and its Historical Stages (Critical analytical approach)

The research aims to solve one of the most complex issues of sociology of development and social change, not to mention the dismantling of one of the most important issues of sociology and sociology of culture. The issue of capitalist globalization and its historical stages of development, as well as the question of whether, especially at its new stage of development, it is a global system or global anarchy? Capitalism, by its structural logic, is not an antistatic system; it is a dynamic system open to shifting and shifting historical horizons. They have been deported at various stages, to a large extent, at the level of form or appearance, although they remain captive to content and one structural logic. As such, in the light of the recent results of the research, we have called for serious action to build a truly new world order based on the rules of pluralism, justice and democracy, as another system replacing the world order based on unilateralism, hegemony and dictatorship.

Critical Historical Reading of the Law of Unequal Historical Evolution

There are many views on the question of the logic and mechanisms of historical development of human society; visions and answers vary, to the extent of total conflict sometimes, on other issues that relate organically to the first question, perhaps the most prominent of which is the general picture of the historical evolution diagram, Sequentially spherical stages, as well as the question of the so-called nation or the multiple nations that alternately lead the ship of the evolution of human society in general. This is where the sharp contrast between the two theories of the so-called equal evolution and the unequal historical evolution as a problem from which the research begins and ends with emphasis on the credibility of the last thesis and on highlighting a large and dangerous part of the ideological manipulation and blindness of the first thesis. The latter, which is one of the moss serious thesis of European orientalism and the pervasive wooden understanding of the original thought of Marxist origin.