Introduction                                  
The long-term crises of capitalism act as a catalyst for instituting systemic changes on a global scale. As evidenced in the longue durée contemporary history of the modern world, systematic shifts in hegemonic cycles during extended periods of crisis within the world-system can occur alongside the evolutionary progression of global systematic accumulation cycles, leading to changes in the geographical centers of hegemony. From this perspective, the dominant political, social, economic, and ideological paradigms within the hegemonic state, along with the structural managerial mechanisms that govern them, wield significant influence over the reconfiguration of the world-system and the future hegemonic management. The theoretical and practical models of Western imperialism, rooted in Western civilization paradigms, have significantly shaped the structural orientation, control, and configuration of the world-system during the Dutch, British, and American hegemonic cycles. Similarly, the aforementioned systemic trend can also bring about the resurgence of specific management models and relationships. This shift is likely to manifest prominently during the phase of systemic transition from the American hegemonic cycle to the probable Chinese hegemonic system. In the American hegemonic cycle, the U.S.A. succeeded in establishing a hierarchical and highly centralized hegemonic system, along with corresponding international institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (ultimately transformed into the World Trade Organization), as well as repressive global institutions such as NATO and other international organizations within the modern world-system. Similarly, the ongoing evolution of China’s potential hegemony has fostered the emergence of a hegemonic systemic structure in line with the Chinese consensus, distinct national management mechanisms, and the indigenous Chinese development model. At its core, the Chinese hegemony embodies specific relational and managerial models that define the potential hegemonic management of the post-American world-system.
Moreover, the recurrence of cycle from industrial accumulation to financial accumulation within the hegemonic economy of the United States, coupled with casino capitalism, has contributed to the erosion of the structure of the U.S. national economy. Meanwhile, the development of productive accumulation of the basic industry within emerging BRICS powers, with China at the forefront, has established new centers of power and global accumulation. Within these concurrent changes, the geopolitical crises of the 21st century have served as a stage for the hegemonic competition in the fragile regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Asia-Pacific. The Ukraine war and the potential for wars in the Far East aimed at dismantling U.S. land and maritime bases could mark the climax of a transition into an uncertain fourth hegemonic cycle.
This systemic transformation, on one hand, might engender structural effects in the global political economy and in the configuration of the development of the world-system development. On the other hand, it can impact intergovernmental relations and mechanisms of military operations and restorations in the world. The distinct Chinese hegemonic process could change traditional models of global geopolitical divisions. Ultimately, the final occurrence of the hegemonic systemic transition to the post-American world-system may have decisive systemic effects on the relative reconstruction of the capitalist crisis and the uncertain bifurcation of the world-system in the phase of its recent long-term crisis. Understanding the structural transformation of the world-system and the structural tendency of the recent systemic crisis of capitalism requires an examination of the systemic transmutation of international capitalism, changes in power morphology, and the performance of international and regional organizations on a global scale, with an eye to the evolution of uncertain Chinese hegemonic control. In this respct, the present study tried to answer the following question: What are the consequences of the probable transition to the fourth hegemonic cycle (i.e., the Chinese hegemony) for the reconstruction of the capitalist world-system?
 Materials and Methods
Using a systemic approach to address the research question, the present study developed a theoretical model that integrates world-systems analysis with the theory of uncertainty in systemic bifurcations. The method drew upon theoretical and analytical research on recent developments of capitalism, America’s decline, China’s ascent on the global stage, and corresponding statistical data.
Results and Discussion
The structural transformations within the recent world-system have led to fundamental shifts in the reproduction of systemic hegemonic relations and models of international control and management. The structural changes, occurring within an inherently uncertain process, are poised to have irreversible effects on the configuration of hegemonic relations within the post-American world-system. Within the Western hegemonic cycles, there was a vertical relationship configured at the core of world-system, revolving around an international locus of control. Meanwhile, political levers, geopolitical containment, and international institutionalization would act as influential global forces in the systemic reproduction of hegemonic relations. Moreover, the hegemonic structure would be solidified by the hegemonic center through quasi-monopolistic control over the capitalist world economy.
However, in the post-Soviet era, the rise of new centers of power and tangible changes in the formation of the world economy disrupted the historical conditions required for the reproduction of hegemonic vertical control over the world-system. Several factors contributed to this transformation: the emerging powers in Asia and South America, the new regional coalitions and alliances such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the indigenous organizations in Latin America such as CELAC and UNASUR. Additionally, the global dominance of traditional yet hegemonic currencies has been challenged by competing currencies and digital cryptocurrencies, coinciding with the expansion of globalized network capitalism within the digital economy. Furthermore, the prevalence of offensive realism in world politics has led to a quantitative and qualitative expansion of arms trade and the demonopolization of weapons of mass destruction and advanced missile-based weapons, resulting in an increase in deterrence and defense capabilities of world countries.
These conditions have significantly increased the costs and long-term consequences of hegemonic vertical control in the world-system. Consequently, during the transition away from the third cycle or American hegemony, the foreign and defense policy strategies of various countries are undergoing a reconfiguration, including regional and international coalitions and alliances, or individual national measures aimed at challenging and countering the unipolar and unilateralist world-system. It is anticipated that this process will immediately lead to the strengthened multiple and dispersed loci of geopolitical power across the entire world-system.
Conclusion
If the structures created in the third hegemonic cycle remain unchanged, they cannot reproduce and sustain hegemonic relations with a singular locus of systemic control in the post-American world-system. Therefore, the current world-system, in the process of transitioning to a possible fourth hegemonic cycle led by China, is undergoing a transformation—in terms of power morphology and the material structure of capitalism—to a flat multipolar formation that consists of multiple geopolitical power loci, counter-hegemonic regional and international coalitions, and dispersed spaces of global capital accumulation within a horizontal hegemonic system.