This article examines the political economy of French imperialism from a critical Marxist perspective. It demonstrates how France has maintained a major role on the international scene, especially militarily, despite experiencing a relative decline in world economic power since the 1990s. In this regard, three features have marked the French imperial project: the core role of state institutions and corporate elites in making French capitalism, and the protracted closeness of the state-capital nexus; the strength of militarism in economic, political, and (...) social realms; and the consolidation of rentier interests not only in the corporate power bloc, but also at a political level. Over the past century, these three dynamics have underpinned and reinforced a particular project of empire in France – one that bears relevance to current debates on globalisation and the ‘new imperialism’. By examining these issues, this paper seeks to further develop the Marxist theory of international political economy. (shrink)

The nationally embedded and relatively broad-based economies characteristic of developed industrial countries are usually seen as the incarnation of a modern economy. These economies are largely internally oriented and are based, to a relatively great extent, on production and services based on local and national needs. Their provenance is generally assumed to have been processes of development that began in the sixteenth century and that, in the nineteenth century, accelerated with the expansion of industrial production and the growth of global (...) trade. This article challenges that assumption. It argues that today’s modern economies represent, not the culmination of long-term processes, but a recurring phenomenon within capitalism. It argues that, in the history of capitalism, there have been phases of nationally embedded and global free market capitalism – periods when capital is relatively more, and relatively less, free from the regulation of nation state. Today’s nationally embedded economies represent, not a further point along a unilinear developmental trajectory, but a return to features of the moral economies that characterized both European and non-European societies before the nineteenth century. (shrink)

This study explains why the power of neoliberal business over the Mexican state increased during the last three decades of the twentieth century. It identifies three sources of increased neoliberal business power that occurred in conjunction with neoliberal reforms: (1) active mobilization by neoliberal business, (2) increased access to the state by neoliberal business, and (3) increased economic power of neoliberal business. It thereby contributes additional evidence that counters the view of Mexico’s state neoliberalizers as acting autonomously from business. It (...) further outlines two conditions that were instrumental in bringing about the increased power of neoliberal business: the onset of economic crisis in the 1970s, and a shift in foreign capital preferences in Mexico. The analysis demonstrates how Mexico’s sources and conditions of business power differed from those in advanced industrial societies, and outlines why the Mexican case may be a good starting point for devising a historically-contingent theory of business power in the semiperiphery. (shrink)

This article examines how the Iraq War was a space in the ongoing geographical extension of global capitalism linked tousforeign policy. Was it simply the decision by a unitary, hegemonic actor in the inter-state system overriding concerns from other states? Was it an imperialist move to secure the ‘global oil spigot’? Alternatively, did the use of military force reflect the interests and emergence of a transnational state apparatus? We argue that theusimperium needs to be conceptualised as a specific form of (...) state, within which and through which fractions of national and transnational capital operate. In so doing, the Iraq War is assessed as a moment in the extension of global capitalism in which the interests of a national fraction of capital within theusstate form was dominant, thereby placing processes of class struggle and their relation to wider spaces of imperialism at the centre of analysis. (shrink)

In contemporary democracies, global capitalism exerts a significant influence over how state power is exercised, raising questions about where political power resides in global politics. This question is important, since our specific considerations about justifiability of political power, i.e. political legitimacy, depend on how we characterize political power at the global level. As a partial answer to this question, I argue that our notion of global political legitimacy should be reoriented to include the structural power of the Transnational Capitalist Class (...) as its subject matter. Structural power is a social relation in which the institutional context makes some agents comply with others’ preferences regardless of actors’ intentional efforts to bring about such outcomes. Even when global business elites do not intentionally exercise power to obtain political control of global governance, their structural power has recognizable effects that partly enforce the world order. To advance my claim, I utilize the radical realists’ argument that the notion of legitimacy is applicable to a broader range of social practices that are beyond dyadic power relations, i.e. rulers intentionally exercising power over subjects. (shrink)

Recent events impel us to rethink fundamentals: to bring political economy, historical materialist theory, state theory, and the theory of nations and national consciousness together, and to bear on the core questions: How mature is world capitalism today? What stadial — stage-theoretic — elements must be invoked to explain the present? A rigorous stadial approach to capitalist evolution suggests that, contrary to much popular wisdom, capitalism's conquest of the world is far from complete. This understanding does not mechanically postpone significant (...) social transformation; to the contrary, it points toward the possibility of getting a better fix on what is possible in the short term, so as to bring longer range goals into clearer focus and relevance. (shrink)

A historical assessment of the Leninist conception of imperialism is the necessary foundation for a theoretical periodization of capitalism, in which the current developments and rising globalization have led to a dialectical supersession of imperialism. The emerging new stage of capitalism is characterized as transnational or totalitarian capitalism. The structural characteristics and basic trends of this new stage of capitalism stand in interesting contrast to the theoretical conception of Empire, proposed by Hardt and Negri. The former approach offers a more (...) adequate framework for understanding the current restructuring of capitalism and a safer political guide for the emancipating working-class struggle towards a socialist supersession of capitalism. (shrink)