This page presents the framework of World‑Systems Geopolitics and Antisystemic State Action, developed by Charles Pennaforte within the LabGRIMA/UFPel. The approach combines world‑systems analysis, classical geopolitics and critical geopolitics to interpret the crisis of U.S. hegemony, the strategic confrontation between the United States and China, and the role of the Global South – particularly Brazil and Latin America – in the contemporary international order.
Starting from the hypothesis that the current order is bifurcating, rather than merely “multipolar”, the framework introduces two main contributions: (1) the notion of antisystemic state action, which shifts the focus from “bottom‑up” social movements to state and interstate strategies of contestation; and (2) the distinction between Proactive and Active states as different ways of responding to what is defined as an antisystemic imperative – the set of pressures generated by the intensive use of sanctions, financial exclusions, wars and narrative struggles by the hegemonic center.
This section gathers a concise presentation of the core theses, bibliographical references, teaching materials (slides, handouts) and links to books and articles that develop World‑Systems Geopolitics and Antisystemic State Action, with particular emphasis on the implications for Brazil, Latin America and the Global South more broadly.
Six Theses – World‑Systems Geopolitics and Antisystemic State Action
Thesis 1 – The order is bifurcating, not merely multipolar
The twenty‑first‑century international order is not simply moving from U.S. unipolarity to a diffuse multipolarity. It is evolving towards a bifurcating order, in which coalitions of states build rival financial, technological, security and narrative infrastructures – parallel payment systems, supply chains, military alliances and media ecosystems – that cannot be fully captured by traditional “multipolarity” language.
Thesis 2 – Antisystemic action is not only “from below”: there is antisystemic state action
Drawing on and revising Wallerstein’s notion of antisystemic movements, this approach distinguishes between “from below” resistance and antisystemic state action. The latter refers to the strategies through which states and state coalitions contest the geopolitical and geoeconomic logic of the U.S.‑led system – in security, finance, trade and global governance – without necessarily abandoning capitalism or the interstate system.
Thesis 3 – Proactive vs. Active states as a typology of contestation
The framework develops a typology that differentiates between Proactive and Active states. Proactive states adopt openly confrontational strategies vis‑à‑vis the Washington–Brussels axis, facing sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military pressure while investing in alternative military, financial, energy and technological capabilities – as in the cases of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. Active states, such as Brazil, India, South Africa and segments of the Arab world, remain deeply integrated into Western institutions and markets, yet pursue calibrated forms of contestation and autonomy‑seeking, advocating multipolarity, multilateral reform and greater voice for the Global South.
Thesis 4 – World‑Systems Geopolitics: space, cycles and infrastructures
World‑Systems Geopolitics combines classical concerns with territory, sea lanes, buffer zones and access to resources with world‑systems analysis of long cycles of accumulation and core–semiperiphery–periphery hierarchies. It emphasizes the material infrastructures of power – financial networks, energy corridors, digital platforms and military basing – through which hegemonic centers organise the world‑system and through which antisystemic state action is articulated.
Thesis 5 – Sanctions, wars and narratives as drivers of bifurcation
Sanctions, proxy wars and narrative struggles are not mere “episodes”, but central mechanisms of bifurcation in the contemporary world‑system. The extensive use of economic sanctions, financial exclusion and technological controls against actors such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela; the war in Ukraine; and the handling of crises like Gaza both reveal the crisis of U.S. hegemony and generate antisystemic incentives for Proactive and Active states. In parallel, narrative and cyber conflicts over how these crises are framed become key arenas in which legitimacy and leadership are contested.
Thesis 6 – The Global South as a laboratory of the bifurcating order
Rather than treating the Global South as a passive recipient of systemic dynamics, this approach places it at the centre as a laboratory of the bifurcating order. BRICS and BRICS Plus, experiments in de‑dollarization and alternative payment mechanisms, South–South cooperation and calls for the reform of multilateral institutions illustrate how Proactive and Active states from the Global South test new combinations of partnerships, currencies, institutions and narratives in response to the antisystemic imperative.
