In Imperialism and Global Political Economy Alex Callinicos intervenes in one of the main political and intellectual debates of the day. Imperialism and Global Political Economy, Polity Press: Cambridge,. capitalist heartland, this book by Alex Callinicos could hardly have arrived in a more. Book review: Alex Callinicos Imperialism and Global Political Economy, Polity Press: Cambridge, ; pp: , £ (pbk). Show all authors.
|Published (Last):||21 April 2015|
|PDF File Size:||8.4 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.82 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Rafel Sanchis-palop rated it it was amazing Nov 06, A century or two earlier these two competitive logics had been distinct, rooted in different modes of production: But I sorta thought the whole point of Marxism was to reject the “simplify and specialize” ethos of positivism.
The global policies of the United States in the past decade have encouraged the widespread belief that we live in a new era of imperialism. From this perspective modern imperialism is what happens where two previously distinct forms of competition merged, as they did in the late 19th century: And such a theory needs to comprise not only inter-imperial rivalry, and the conjunctural predominance of one imperial state, but also the structural penetration of former rivals by one imperial state GCAEpp.
Alex Callinicos: Imperialism and global political economy (Autumn )
Be the first to ask a question about Imperialism and Global Political Economy. The fact that, instead of disintegrating after the Cold War, the transnational economic and geopolitical space constructed in the s became genuinely global was in no sense inevitable.
Alex Callinicos’ new book, is a crucial intervention into these arguments The crisis over Iraq brought all this into dramatic focus. Panitch and Gindin do acknowledge the possibility that China may come to constitute a counter-example to their general analysis:. Transatlantic tensions reached their height when, in the early months ofthe Bush administration apparently embraced a policy, not as had traditionally been US strategy of encouraging further European integration, but of divide and rule.
Bill Crane rated it really liked it Aug 07, Its extension was a result of the creative political intervention of the American state, particularly under the Clinton administration, for example, to take advantage of the Balkan Wars to force through NATO and EU expansion on terms that preserved and indeed extended the role of the US as the leading military and political power in Eurasia, and to reinforce the role of the Bretton Woods institutions as enforcers of the neo-liberal Washington Consensus on terms favourable to the Anglo-American model of free-market capitalism.
Marxist Perspectivesas above. Max rated it it was amazing Apr 18, Imperialism and Global Political Economy is an invaluable guide as well as a unique and persuasive argument by itself. Return to Book Page.
All of this is fair enough, and one can add other specific reasons why economic competition within the Western bloc need not translate into military conflict. Suskind, The Price of Loyalty Londonp. This differentiates Panitch and Gindin from those, such as Brenner and Harvey, who argue correctly, in my view that global capitalism continues to suffer from the crisis of profitability and over-accumulation that first exploded in the mids.
Lists with This Book. Now, Marx famously said that if essence and appearance coincided then science would be superfluous. But if tendencies to boom and crisis are the consequence of structural realities — in particular, relatively decentralised and anarchic competition among capitals — that are not easily amenable to collective interventions even by the most powerful capitalist states, then these states, the US included, are much more constrained in their actions than Panitch and Gindin are prepared to concede.
Let us return to the issue of inter-imperialist rivalries. The main reasons for this are, of course, the global primacy of the United States and the arrogance with which the Impreialism administration has flaunted this pre-eminence, above all in the military field. But they are insufficiently sensitive to the strains to which it has been increasingly subjected as a result of two overlapping processes.
Published August 1st by Poliyical Press first published Alice Mennie rated it it was amazing Oct 12, Brenner, The Capitalist Economy, — Imperizlism conclusion that Panitch and Gindin draw from this analysis is not to invite us, in the face ylobal the evidence, to conclude that all is well with the contemporary imperial order:. Hence, once the balance of class forces had shifted back in favour of capital — as it did, not just in the US but throughout advanced capitalism between and — the ineluctable consequence was a recovery in profitability and an end to crisis.
Teschke, The Myth of London Personally I find it more economical, however, to take this material at face value, and to treat it as evidence of the very long-standing preoccupation of US grand strategy to prevent the emergence of a hostile Great Power or coalition on the Eurasian landmass. Would you like to change to the site? Boron, Empire and Imperialism London Imperialism and Global Political Economy. The case for this proposition is argued very powerfully by Peter Gowan in an unpublished paper, Industrial Dynamics and Interstate Relations in the Core.
But it does not follow that this competition must necessarily take the form of conflict, ultimately military, among a relatively small number of roughly equal Great Powers or coalitions of Great Powers — as it did in the lead-up to both the First and Second World Wars. May 13, Tess rated it really liked it Shelves: But the role, already noted, that Asian central banks now play in pilitical the deficit highlights the role of more political or more political-economic considerations in this policy — for example, avoiding the dependence on foreign capital that had such a devastating impact during the crisis of —98 and keeping Asian currencies at a competitive level against the dollar and thereby permitting the maintenance of econkmy high-export economic model on which East Asian capitalism is based.
For two of the most important contributions, see R. The best account of US strategy in successfully addressing these crises is provided by Gowan: Geopolitical competition can no longer be pursued without the economic resources that could only be generated within the framework of capitalist relations of production; but capitals globak in increasingly global networks of trade and investment depend on different polotical of support, ranging from tariff and subsidy to the assertion of military power, from their nation-state.
Poliyical the historic achievement of the American state nad the s was the construction of a transnational economic and geopolitical space that unified the entire advanced capitalist world under US leadership: From International Socialism 2: You could probably guess that Callinicos supports the third view.
Imperialism and Global Political Economy
Very good, very thorough examination of imperialism, backed up by both theory, history, and economic data. If these arguments are correct, the implications are very serious for Panitch and Gindin. Secondly, Panich and Gindin insist on giving proper weight to the state as a relatively autonomous actor. Eclnomy the aim of the French president, Jacques Calliniccos, seems to have been straightforwardly geopolitical — to find in the rising power of China a counter-weight to American hegemony.
Harvey, The New Imperialism Oxfordpp. Marxists should be particularly well equipped to respond to this development, given the importance that their tradition has given to the concept of imperialism. In this book Callinicos traces the history of Imperialism, both as a political concept, and as a force that shaped, and continues to shape, the world we live in.
His compelling historical narrative, clear theoretical exposition and politically engaged adjudication make this essential reading not only for students of Marxism or International Relations, but also for anyone who wonders why, at the start of the twenty-first century, the Lenin-Bukharin thesis has not, will not, and should not go away.