GREGORY ALBO
Writing forty years ago in the first volume of the Socialist Register, Hamza
Alavi argued that it was necessary to turn to an analysis of a ‘new impe-
rialism’, because the ‘end of direct colonial rule … [had] not yet precipitated that
final crisis which was to see the end of monopoly capitalism and to herald the
age of socialism.’ Insisting that the key dynamic in the world economy could no
longer be captured by the classic theories of imperialism of territorial expan-
sionism in the search for economic outlets, he concluded that
the principal aim of … the new imperialism is not the export of capital as
a means of exploiting cheap labour overseas. It is rather that of concen-
trating investment at home to expand production in the metropolitan
country and of seeking to dominate world markets on which it establishes
its grasp by a variety of means …1
This insight, at once theoretical and political, remains central to the analysis
of the new imperialism today in terms of the systemic reproduction of uneven
development and the hierarchical organizational arrangement of the world
market through formally equal economic exchanges and political relations
between states.2 By locating imperialism in terms of the law of value and the rule
of law, ‘consent’ can be seen as important as ‘coercion’ in understanding modern
imperialism.
The internationalisation of capital during the long period of neoliberalism
since the 1980s has given rise to new patterns and contradictions in the world
market and has had profound effects on the institutionalization of state power,
the organization of state apparatuses and the relations between states. This has
raised three sets of issues with respect to the theory of imperialism: (1) the
patterns of competition and the distribution of power in the centres of capital
accumulation, i.e., inter-imperial relations; (2) the mechanisms and patterns of
uneven development that reproduce hierarchical relations between dominant and
dominated social formations; and (3) the political and cultural relations between,
and oppression of, different peoples; or to put it another way, the question of
political sovereignty vis-à-vis the development of supra-national institutions of
governance. While all three issues remain fundamental to the political economy
of the world market today, it is the first that is of chief concern here.
A characteristic of this period of neoliberalism is that political alternatives
outside the advanced capitalist bloc have been marginalized. The new imperi-
alism has intensified the relations of domination, in terms of both economic
marginalization and geo-political subordination, within the imperialist chain. The
emergence of three political-economic zones – albeit zones with great variation
of organizational arrangements, from the deep integration of the European
Union (EU) to the preferential trading arrangements of North America and the
trade linkages formed by subcontracting networks in East Asia – is a key devel-
opment. But how does the internationalisation of capital affect the organizational
forms, competitive rivalries and interdependencies of these three blocs, and, in
particular, what are the effects of this on the place of the US as the dominant
imperialist pole?
https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5812/2708/
SOCIALIST REGISTER
Writing forty years ago in the first volume of the Socialist Register, Hamza
Alavi argued that it was necessary to turn to an analysis of a ‘new impe-
rialism’, because the ‘end of direct colonial rule … [had] not yet precipitated that
final crisis which was to see the end of monopoly capitalism and to herald the
age of socialism.’ Insisting that the key dynamic in the world economy could no
longer be captured by the classic theories of imperialism of territorial expan-
sionism in the search for economic outlets, he concluded that
the principal aim of … the new imperialism is not the export of capital as
a means of exploiting cheap labour overseas. It is rather that of concen-
trating investment at home to expand production in the metropolitan
country and of seeking to dominate world markets on which it establishes
its grasp by a variety of means …1
This insight, at once theoretical and political, remains central to the analysis
of the new imperialism today in terms of the systemic reproduction of uneven
development and the hierarchical organizational arrangement of the world
market through formally equal economic exchanges and political relations
between states.2 By locating imperialism in terms of the law of value and the rule
of law, ‘consent’ can be seen as important as ‘coercion’ in understanding modern
imperialism.
The internationalisation of capital during the long period of neoliberalism
since the 1980s has given rise to new patterns and contradictions in the world
market and has had profound effects on the institutionalization of state power,
the organization of state apparatuses and the relations between states. This has
raised three sets of issues with respect to the theory of imperialism: (1) the
patterns of competition and the distribution of power in the centres of capital
accumulation, i.e., inter-imperial relations; (2) the mechanisms and patterns of
uneven development that reproduce hierarchical relations between dominant and
dominated social formations; and (3) the political and cultural relations between,
and oppression of, different peoples; or to put it another way, the question of
political sovereignty vis-à-vis the development of supra-national institutions of
governance. While all three issues remain fundamental to the political economy
of the world market today, it is the first that is of chief concern here.
A characteristic of this period of neoliberalism is that political alternatives
outside the advanced capitalist bloc have been marginalized. The new imperi-
alism has intensified the relations of domination, in terms of both economic
marginalization and geo-political subordination, within the imperialist chain. The
emergence of three political-economic zones – albeit zones with great variation
of organizational arrangements, from the deep integration of the European
Union (EU) to the preferential trading arrangements of North America and the
trade linkages formed by subcontracting networks in East Asia – is a key devel-
opment. But how does the internationalisation of capital affect the organizational
forms, competitive rivalries and interdependencies of these three blocs, and, in
particular, what are the effects of this on the place of the US as the dominant
imperialist pole?
https://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/download/5812/2708/
No comments:
Post a Comment