From my (admittedly somewhat limited) reading of Marxist (/Marxist-adjacent) historians on the subject of the history of the capitalist system, I think I've noticed a kind of tension between different historian's theoretical frameworks. To put things in a perhaps reductionist way, Marx himself in his critique of political economy seems to suggest that the capitalist mode of production is a historically specific social totality. However, certain historians I've read seem to lean either toward the "historically specific" bit, or the "social totality" bit, in ways that seem mutually exclusive of each counterpart.

Now, the historians I really have in mind here are Ellen Meiksins Wood and Immanuel Wallerstein (maybe not technically a historian but you get the point).

Meiksins Wood emphasized the contingency of the origins of the capitalist system, arguing that capitalism was not merely a "natural" extension or expansion of pre-capitalist trade relations, but rather resulted from a specific set of political and social reforms that produced a dynamic of market imperatives. So, her approach definitely highlights the historical specificity/contingency of the capitalist system. However, in her theory this seems to come at the cost of emphasizing capitalism as a social totality. To my knowledge, she argued that capitalism was only existent in those regions and those situations where market imperatives prevailed. So for example, I believe she argued that the American slave system was not part of the capitalist system. Presumably she also did not regard the Soviet Union as a capitalist state.

Wallerstein, in contrast, emphasized that the capitalist system was a social totality, a world-system driven by a central dynamic but including many varied institutions, not only markets and market imperatives. So for example, for Wallerstein, nation-states exist within the world-system, and even the so-called "actually existing socialist" states must be understood as a part of the capitalist system, though those states may have lacked internal markets. Wallerstein was similarly critical of stageist conceptions of development where peasant societies are considered as still being "feudal" whereas only industrial societies are "capitalist"; peasant and industrial societies simply represent different regions and different aspects of a single capitalist world-system. However, to my knowledge Wallerstein's theory does not seem to emphasize the contingency of the origins of the capitalist system, but rather seems to present the capitalist dynamic as an extension of pre-existing trade relations.

I've read Meiksins Wood's book on the Origin of Capitalism, as well as Wallerstein's introduction to world-systems book. I've also read some essays and listened to some video lectures from each of them. Still, I first of all want to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting either of their theories. Provided that I've portrayed each of them more or less accurately, do you think I'm correct about the specific way that their theories are in tension? Are there other Marxist or Marxist-adjecent historians of capitalism that address this tension, and perhaps even overcome it?

It seems to me that any historical theory of the capitalist system that cannot both account for the system as a social totality (not merely a certain kind of market relations), and account for the contingency of the system's origins (not merely viewing the system as a natural extension of pre-capitalist trade relations), is lacking something important. But I am also not a trained historian. Thanks!