This article was downloaded by:[2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] On: 22 December 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 787616434] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cambridge Review of International Affairs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713409751 Does capitalism need the state system? Alex Callinicos a a King's College, London

Online Publication Date: 01 December 2007 To cite this Article: Callinicos, Alex (2007) 'Does capitalism need the state system?', Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20:4, 533 - 549 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09557570701680464 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09557570701680464

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 h odnMtooia nvriyItrainlRltosSmnrweeIpresented I where Seminar Relations and it. International Seminar of this Theory University versions Political on Metropolitan International comments Cambridge London their the in the for participants reviewers the anonymous to and three paper, and Rosenberg, Justin Nachtwey, O:10.1080/09557570701680464 DOI: online/07/040533–17 1474-449X print/ISSN 0955-7571 ISSN inter-state for scope the explore to 21 which the in in More framework realism. conflict theoretical and Marxism a production. of offers reconciliation of it partial in mode a importantly, of for capitalist whether, basis way the the a of provides within argued, argument question system is This are it state states the offers, the of Capital exploring incorporating system in method non-reductively international by Marx’s the related. so and contingently system does or persist necessarily economic It conflicts capitalist states. political the theory, and capitalist or Marxist economic main nation-state significant This that the the conflict. argue inter-state overcome among overridden who has has those States capitalism supports United believe the globalized article Many of because empire’ future. ‘informal either the a none, because has has geopolitics it whether that over disagree counterparts, mainstream Abstract London College, King’s Callinicos Alex system? state the need capitalism Does 2007 December 4, Number 20, Affairs, Volume International of Review Cambridge emnto fgooiis tlato lblscale. global effective a the on marked also least Union at War Soviet Cold the the geopolitics, of of end of collapse the the since termination politics whether international been in puzzles has major the of One Introduction ihl rnt elptuo’(at 93 9.Sme utntnage that will, argued coalition Huntington who Samuel anti-hegemonic weaker 79). the an 1993, of (Waltz of time, responses upon’ formation ‘over put the ‘the States: feel by the United not, checked the or by passing be rightly against a produced will balance prove politics power would to (USSR) unbalanced started global Republics states of Socialist as Soviet nuclear structure of phenomenon with Union unipolar armed the powers the of predicted great eclipse that example, into for develop and Waltz, would weapons Kenneth Japan and negative. Germany the that in question this answered uepwrceit ihrgoa oes(utntn19,4) u,a the as But, 44). 1999, (Huntington uni-multi- powers regional 20 a with coexists in superpower phenomenon natural th 2 1 niesr ftefl fteBri aldasng,ms bevr see observers most nigh, draws Wall Berlin the of fall the of anniversary ua 20)ofr ugsieaayi ftecagn tutr fgeopolitics. of structure changing the of analysis suggestive a offers (2004) Buzan Oliver Gowan, Peter Barker, Colin Ashman, Sam Anievas, Alex to grateful am I otmoayMritsuet fitrainlrltos ietheir like relations, international of students Marxist Contemporary st 1 century. oa ol’weeteAmerican the where world’ polar q ... 07Cnr fItrainlStudies International of Centre 2007 would 2 ... elssfamously Realists pert ea be to appear Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 fgoaiainta omne e ou nipraimaogMarxist among imperialism on focus the new particular, discourse a proliferating 1990s—in the commanded the and of globalization—that US the conjuncture of of Bush’s the hegemony W unrivalled was the George It has of predated House. combination This revival White is intellectual the vengeance. this the to course, a but entry Of coincidence, imperialism. with a on back writing exactly Marxist not is of renaissance imperialism a with terrorism, coincided against war’ ‘long cliche a become has It renewed imperialism on debate The could subject. the that this more about much on is points said there some be though realism, make not and did debates Marxism the I War between important Cold defend necessity relationship the Marxist I how of competition—of end that the geopolitical seeing these realists—that Given terminate by from perspective. affirmed of that different benefit as a conclusion some content same from discover approached specific the are still geopolitics. problems find the may contemporary may they theory and of unfamiliar, relations future vocabulary international and mainstream conceptual problem nature of the practitioners started—the to economic returning While we finally, capitalist and, which the system; state with between international relationship the and the system particular namely one Marxists addressing dividing anomaly, second, this controversy imperialism; major theoretical in contemporary the made of in 2006). nature argument approach Pozo-Martin, the the own 2006; about framing debates (Kiely, first, my by, Pozo-Martin these of so Gonzalo do criticisms explore and I to Kiely to Ray respond seeks by to journal article process, the This in relations. and, international of students real those states example, further (for offer than powers and remaining 1999). impose nation-states their economy al of et world some both of pool Held the to that capabilities and of cooperate structure to governance and incentives changed global the sovereignty influential from of the arising one forms politics: on global of restrictions necessary of development the nature 2005). the not the Paul or in is 1999 transformation Wohlforth balancing thoughtisthateconomicglobali which see a security, example, in posit (for own system structure Others international their unipolar a anarchic seek of show an outcome when’ must to of seek states premise say that realist explanations rational cannot offer the Some granted it programme. that, research that failed a a is theory, rescue the theories, world of predicts science limitation post-ideological theory A social 27). a restored. ‘Realist 2000, to be (Waltz trends: in day common of one structural system, difficulty will limitation of unities inherent disrupted state the timing cultural balances reflects that the larger precise simply it civilizations, the of Waltz, for of determining units influence 45–46); in 1999, for, political greater (Huntington accounted the be the to by the is than Huntington, least, appear For primacy. to at US behaviour limiting part balancing of significant capable of coalition a slowness of sign real little 534 iia eae aeeegdaogMritpltcleooit and economists political Marxist among emerged have debates Similar to attempts unsuccessful represent responses these however, many, For lxCallinicos Alex ´ osyta,wt h uhamnsrto’ rcaaino a of proclamation administration’s Bush the with that, say to ainhsbe copne by accompanied been has zation Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 eetdb ei n xlctyciiie yBkai:seLxmugadBukharin and Luxemburg see Bukharin: by criticized on explicitly perspective and (1972). in Internationals: Lenin premise—the only Third developed major by the and whose breakdown rejected Second explanation capitalist means different the of significantly of no theory a eras by offered the Luxemburg during was Rosa Marxists by theory offered Lenin-Bukharin imperialism The appropriate. hs fcptls eeomn htMrit ftetm eeal gedhad agreed generally 20 time the the of of beginning the Marxists by that reached been development capitalist of phase otatn h oiin tkdoti h urn axs icsinof discussion Marxist current the in and out 1964 staked Lenin originals, positions imperialism. the the for contrasting and, 2002, Halliday and see (for Lenin 1972). dog Bukharin Vladimir exception, dead a by was rare I formulated War World a imperialism during Bukharin of Nikolai resulting by theory the refined to considerably the contributors that most was among was ground debates return theoretical this Common of course, repetition. range Of simple good 2005). a no Rosenberg for conjuncture, the 2002 on Smith and, and perspectives, Rupert example, for (see, theorists Shssceddi osrcigsneWrdWrI n‘nomlepr’that of empire’ hegemony ‘informal view American an to same II states War capitalist the leading World the other since Leo share the system, constructing subordinates state by not effectively the in needs systematically succeeded do capitalism while has argued it that US asserts position, reject Gindin, Sam Wood second and who Ellen Panitch A those by inherently imperialism. notably but neither contested, contemporary 2003), strongly is very 2002, centuries been (Wood few function has to production past claim of relations This the capitalist optimally. for for required longer globally, any nor then necessary the rivalries, Europe, that geopolitical is of in context argument structural this first the of provided and premise has (Hardt and that minor system The obsolete inter-state economically 2004). are Robinson states both 2004; capitalist 2000, organized leading Negri the now that among follows a conflicts William straightforwardly is conclusion geopolitical offer and the capitalism lines: Negri, who transnational that Toni along those politically Hardt, claim are Michael can all there Thus, One debates. Robinson argument. First, contemporary Kautsky’s positions. framing of for three version point, template speaking, the a to as broadly More used identify, 1991). be capitalist can 79–88; 1987, (2) a so Callinicos, claim from (see would theory irrational Lenin-Bukharin but the war level national make the to at 2002). as the (Callinicos stop perspective transnationally that not asserted capital two would which integrate these ‘organization’ 1984), Karl to Given (Kautsky of hostile of so states. ultra-imperialism were process competition Bukharin these of and territorial Lenin dominated theory and both why Kautsky’s now economic understood be that the can it trusts’ of produced claims, an capitalist that consequence attempted powers ‘state a it great (2) the as the and I among capital; War private rivalries and World geopolitical strongly state the the more of of affirmed fusion explanation (Bukharin the culminating in ‘organized Lenin) level, called than national Hilferding the Rudolf at what produced capitalism’ had capital of centralization eeteesteLnnBkai hoycnpoieaueu rmwr for framework useful a provide can theory Lenin-Bukharin the Nevertheless hsi o h lc o ulassmn ftesrntsadwanse of weaknesses and strengths the of assessment full a for place the not is This 3 nabif rmrl ocpulppro hskn,adge fsyiainis stylization of degree a kind, this of paper conceptual primarily brief, a In 3 hster i w hns 1 tofrda con ftespecific the of account an offered it (1) things: two did theory This th oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does etr,i hc h ocnrto and concentration the which in century, h cuuaino capital of accumulation The wsimplicitly —was 535 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 upre nteitleta et o xml,i nom h dtra ulo of outlook editorial the informs it example, for the left; intellectual the on supported and economic Panitch German to according West over primacy, contretemps Gindin. American and the dented nor significantly Japanese role, has war, causal which Iraq significant the in a played 1970s, US the the obsolete. with is competition of competition crisis geopolitical Robinson: the and Neither Negri conclusion same Hardt, the by implies affirmed argument is This as 2005). 2004, 2003, Gindin and (Panitch 536 codnl,‘h otueu lsia axs hoyfrudrtnigcurrent understanding for but classes: theory system’, Kautsky’s capitalist Marxist is nation-state leading classical realities other hierarchical useful the a most offers of the hegemony ‘the end accordingly, mean US the that not benefits or does and the capital Hardt state stresses from of nation War differs globalization the post-Cold that increased of the highly position ‘the erosion in this that on states development asserting variant other in a the all (a Negri forward captures and put certainly has US Bush it Kiely the and era. W between 2005), Boron power see George of Negri: asymmetry and under Hardt to power embarrassing national American oiini lo leti ifrn a,iasmlbet hscasfiain huhhe though 2006). Brenner classification, (see this text Brenner’s the to in Robert inassimilable listed 2005b). way, propositions three different (2005a, the a Arrighi probably reject in has not example, probably dominance albeit for would its also, See, hegemonic, is currently crisis’. position is ‘terminal US its the while entered while obsolete), are that, and rivalries Hardt’s geopolitical affirming rejects (that further certainly conclusion their he accepts positions: but three premises all Negri’s across not Giovanni brio theory, is with systems debates himself world current spreads of Arrighi, of exponent to contemporary classification incentive important above an most The have The (1981). may exhaustive. Gilpin states other example, goods, for public see, that, provides suggest cooperate: power theory dominant stability the the hegemonic as of against long versions balancing so provokes non-Marxist unipolarity and if Marxist it but produce hegemon, rather may but conflict geopolitical amn20,Hre 03 es20,Srai20) ral paig l these all speaking, 1999, Broadly Gowan 2004). following: 2003, Serfati the Callinicos 2006, affirm Harman, 2005, Rees theorists Chris 2003, (Bello Gowan, Harvey myself Peter 2003, and Harman Bello, Serfati Walden Claude include Rees, represented also prominently John most but are Harvey, They David 32–34). by (2005, Kiely by imperialism’ new 2006). (Kiely states’ capitalist .Cneunl,dsietera smere fpwrbtenteU and US advanced the between of power of division asymmetries real the the despite is Consequently, crisis 3. this of dimension important it which into One crisis economic of 2. era the from exit to yet has capitalism Global 1. ti rbbyfi osyta oevrino hspsto swidely is position this of version some that say to fair probably is It ohteeprpcie r otse yatidgop ubd‘hoit fthe of ‘theorists dubbed group, third a by contested are perspectives these Both 4 e etReview Left New lxCallinicos Alex rmaraitprpcie fcus,aymtyo oe osntexclude not does power of asymmetry course, of perspective, realist a From hm(n nedohrsae uha usaadCia htaelikely, are geopolitical to that rise China) give to and downturn’, Russia ‘long continuing struggles. as the of such context states the in other among indeed exist interest (and of conflicts them significant states, political capitalist leading and other the Asia; economic East and of America North Europe, centres Western of Triad competing so-called the power, three between 2002); 1998, capitalism (Brenner 1970s early and 1960s late the in entered 4 thstemrto ossec ihteasrinof assertion the with consistency of merit the has It . ... hoyo lr-meils oprto ewe h core the between cooperation ultra-imperialist of theory Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 hnta efesolgdt rsn hoeia ifrne nsc aiaue and caricatured a such the in differences about theoretical makes pity present a Kiely and is to that it 79–88), obliged long unexceptionable: points way. also feels (1987, phenomena view, substantive misleading he Callinicos my to example the in that compare are, of refer then prime economy no imperialism’: political Many be new 208–210) global a the would contemporary 13–26). the 2006, of as sub- that criticisms (1991, of but historical of 30–34; Callinicos Iraq ‘theorists His inadequate, of rise 2005, does. to be Saddam’s Kiely ‘The survey (Kiely may familiar as takes analysis to existence, its theory its This that devoted Lenin-Bukharin in denying effectively 45–54). section World’ includes for 1994, I substantial reason Third which which al a to et (1991), the work War’ (Callinicos collective Callinicos in a Cold approach of of the imperialisms these (Kiely kind version of periphery’ after this in processes the of revised ‘Imperialism mentioned instance in of a an accumulation barely account power) as contributed primitive cites (big convincing is Kiely and global a 33). 1991 by development, lacks 2005, ‘[t]he determined and in therefore completely formation example, analysis regime be state For The to Iraqi Bukharin. conflicts. appear the and conflicts imperialist “local” Lenin of as repeating imperialism accounts simply power with small imperialism’ new the rfrt s h oegnrlcneto epltclcmeiin which competition, geopolitical of concept general more tactics, the question-begging but use effective absence to to inter- rhetorically apparent of prefer tend such altogether the absence I states avoid Powers: the To Great among demonstrates conflict. the therefore conflicts the today state between tendency that (roughly) war a between general is such of of prevailed implication form of that The the polarization blocs has for take the 1989–1991. Power it with Great and competition, theory, states into 1890s Lenin-Bukharin geopolitical between system the conflicts state of canonical equating from the has of deriving persistence rivalries’ disadvantage discussion more ‘inter-imperialist the the Marxist in phrase in of the question though status this inter- that First, whether formulate reasons. as to as two two prefer other terms I the at today. questions and abstract main thought persist the of rivalries of current imperialist one third pose the to between debates issue Marxist 2006). of contemporary over- Callinicos in account of and common crises an Ashman resolving see with of Harvey, concludes way on one already more are (for work war accumulation earlier and rivalries this inter-imperialist that how noted be should efraino eec fteLnnBkai theory. and Lenin-Bukharin revision, the of criticism, of way demand defence theory a or limitations Lenin-Bukharin start reaffirmation as the theory’s I from. to Therefore, the problems coming sympathetic refinement. that am theoretical relatively I recognizes is some where that I but about Perhaps clarify standpoint remarks views. a some my to and from with Harvey’s is this of preface want made paper been I should have What this that question. (Callinicos this criticisms historical about in Gindin addressing myself and wrong empirical or and do have an right Panitch ultimately is I to is who with Plainly, era. issues claiming 2006). other debate War in Gindin and and two in post-Cold Panitch other strongly the 2006; the 2005a, view in from this continues differs expressed conflict therefore thought geopolitical of that school third This hoyo h aiaitmd fpouto in Marx’s production of of framework, mode ‘geo-historical’ capitalist broader the a of in theory extension, and restatement in analysis eto fti nlssbig et h rtpito lrfiain tis It clarification. of point first the to me brings analysis this of Mention 5 il fesa xml fti ido ayciiim hsh hre terssof ‘theorists charges he Thus criticism. lazy of kind this of example an offers Kiely h e imperialism new The pace oelz rtc,m oiini o ipya simply not is position my critics, lazy some 18)i vdnl eeomn fhsown his of development a evidently is (1982) oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does h iist capital to limits The 5 ncnrs,Harvey’s contrast, In tog it —though 537 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 eoe l oflcsoe euiy t security, over conflicts states. among all denotes 538 n osqetyt iesf h neet n oncin fsaemngr omk this make to managers state process of connections accumulation Marxist and global a assumption. interests the for restrictive the within reason diversify relations to no inter-state consequently is embed and there to but seeks 2001), that approach 1994–1995, (Mearsheimer competition security rmteneso aia oteeitneo h tt ytm eod vni we if even Second, system. state the of existence the to goes capital it of words, other needs in the the 157): from 2005, (Chibber requires functionalism’ ‘soft calls Chibber actually Vivek modern the but up making possible states saying of makes plurality by system. the state case by only Wood’s exercised restate power not might infrastructural one or domination So may despotically. which capitalist exercised power, infrastructural be great not very may relations, facilitated capabilities economic have, a extractive capitalist contrast, the to by and by restricted organization states, but bureaucratic subjects. modern power, their its capital; to despotic all thanks the great of around had lives territory empires the confined ancient regulate relatively of by to is, rulers actually fewer power the capacity the infrastructural its Thus, Its greater of subjects. infrastructural is function its power over a and the despotic exercise contrast, provide state’s its despotic on A to are 1993). the there states 1986, restraints between (Mann such states distinction of of power system be Mann’s can a argument Wood’s using domination. on its extended to is subject those capitalism it of integrated management dependent intensive globally more more the the perfection its Furthermore, becomes, for 1994). political the Rosenberg and also economic (see the between to and effect prior relations they property originated separation capitalist system the required state view, state modern this territorial the shares sovereign the if who capitalism, even theorist Wood, one in For least (2002). (2) at Wood (item by Ellen conclusion rejected their is paragraph) But preceding 2004). the 1989, differ 2003). (Harman they Teschke capitalism 2005; of though 2002, development it, (Lacher so with doing to dispense actually principle is transition it in the whether could connection about represent contingent which a yet only capitalism, has system not with earlier state to the did consequently (contrary (2) argue absolutism) and they capitalism; of which out as but developed not, interpretations relations that property states while Marxist feudal absolutist of system, the crisis of state the era of the modern the in to the capitalism, prior emerged of (1) phenomenon, way predominance transhistorical that the a affirm, of argue realists part and They phenomenon Weberians gone critics. have transhistorical Teschke, of these Benno kind Marxist a and with some the Lacher Recently exploitation. as Hannes class see notably of that systems to theorists, to irreducible failing inter-state logic a for by to governed Marxists or specific reproached one Giddens, in have competition theorists Anthony tradition relations as international the realist and such and other Skocpol, capitalism of sociologists, Theda merit and between historical Mann the relationship Weberian Michael has the Both This of system. system. terms state state in the problem of units the among reframing interaction of forms main hr r w ifiute ihti ruet h rti hti ufr rmwhat from suffers it that is first The argument. this with difficulties two are There the of view mistaken a on part in rests argument Teschke’s and Lacher’s the of one characterizes understood thus competition geopolitical Second, 6 lxCallinicos Alex elsssc sJh erhie edt qaecmeiinbtensae with states between competition equate to tend Mearsheimer John as such Realists 6 rioy eore n influence and resources erritory, Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 ocpino h tt tteItrainlMr ogesi ai nOtbr2004. October in Paris in Congress Marx International the at state the of conception hna ucinlo n-ie’(avy 03 0.Smlry ru that: argue I Similarly, 30). logics 2003, (Harvey, two one-sided’ these or functional between as relation than ‘[t]he Harvey, states for of strategies thisshould Thus geopolitical of the interests. reduce attractions economic to the attempt to any of of avoids One it logics that competition. territorial is geopolitical approach and as and capitalist economic imperialism respectively, have and of, capitalist I power intersection and of the Harvey conceptions Both by vulnerable. similar constituted seem these very also developed necessary of as independently exercise system state the the and should that capabilities states? why of state plurality power, of a by infrastructural kind undertaken be the capabilities as of that exercise describes of the of performance Mann reproduction on the the that depends certain why granted explain relations if repeat, ‘imperial to itself performed capitalist Hence, of be form. new specific must not any that does takes the function produced function a be of identify to to constitutive are that effects functionalism, namely be with soft: problems to general or more hard the claim of one they illustrates insti- This sovereignty’. international etc—that corporations, territorial NGOs, transnational sovereign tutions, also by exercised but different together certainly, now binding networks actors—states, political are transnational the capabilities capabilities; to opposed these state as needs states, that reproduction deny capitalist Hardt just that 2004a)? the (Callinicos clear they states should perfectly of plurality are why a Negri production, by be and of to have modes function this earlier of exercise intensive than more populations far a of requires and management facilitates both capitalism that grant nevertheless qaewt h asg aejs ie,ltaoewt h vrl con fthe drawn, of is account power passage overall American this the of with which alone Mandarins to from let hard strategy cited, is global just that administration’s its have interpretation Bush of I an terms passage 212), in the 208, with administration 2006, Kiely. square Bush (Kiely by the capital’ committed US ‘seeing to as persistently functionality position views my my describes of he Thus, misrepresentation the of because o hti seooi eutoit u ahrpeieyteopst.Tu,Pozo- Thus, opposite. the precisely rather but writes: reductionist, Martin economic is it that not omtwa ih emt etevlaiyo utn yefa eghi part in length at myself quoting of vulgarity the be to seem might what commit I o ope itrso cnmcadgooiia reasons geopolitical and acted economic have of Powers mixtures Great complex imperialism, modern for of history the throughout generally, u te axs prahsta lotetterltosi ewe capitalism between relationship the treat also that approaches Marxist other But bs fepaain ae ntee ientoa neet rblneo power? of balance or interests logic an national to territorial like lead this themes the not on Might conjunctures, based one. explanations economic certain the of the over at abuse uphold precedence that taking to as possible sense seen perfectly be the might seems it in thus explanation, and realist posited, are logics separate two 105–106) 2003, these collapse (Callinicos another. to seek one not into does dimensions but distinct competition capitalism, economic analytically modern and in geopolitical interwoven which become in have forms corporate the analyses imperialism administration’s of the off read has, and maintaining be that for hegemony project coherent simply US less strengthening or more can’t a represents it rather, Doctrine connections: Bush the 7 aic adte(qal mrbbe hreta avyhsa instrumentalist an has Harvey that charge improbable) (equally the laid Panitch ... ese spolmtcadotncnrdcoy(hti,daetcl rather dialectical) is, (that contradictory often and problematic as seen be . 7 h elcalnet avysadm oiinis position my and Harvey’s to challenge real The ne alia inter oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does neooi dimension economic an , ... h axs theory Marxist The ... More . h new The 539 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 uiyta h uigcashst mrv t aeilstaini through is situation by material its income improve their to increase has class to ruling incentive oppor- the main that any the tunity innovations, have technological productivity-enhancing exploited introducing an nor neither developed where feudalism), has exploiters 37–41). (paradigmatically Brenner 1983, production of (Brenner Robert modes accumulation’ pre-capitalist ‘political insist. In calls he Teschke what competition and of analysis the Lacher important of as nature such Marxists the in transformation a relations. production as capitalist of seen constitutive be can imperialism which competition in of discussion mechanisms wage-labour,in recent good economic a of (for role of indispensable exploitation an consequence under plays competition mode—the a production crises—are capitalist and of the accumulation the units of that follows features places It accumulate. characteristic to which and profitability maximize the interaction, to and pressure another, of systematic competitive one that from second, production their exploitation; of means its hence the to control jointly lead of that sale that capitals’ the terms ‘many to on leads which capital production, separations— of to means two labour-power the by from labour-power constituted of are that production first, of relations in capitalist developed Marx’s incompletely Marx, into production, Karl detour of a mode requires capitalist so the Doing rebutted. of be theory can it but serious, is charge capital This of logic the and competition Geopolitical 540 nNvme 04 n eata ugn(nvrosocsos aewa mutto amount what make occasions) various (on Budgen Sebastian criticisms. and similar 2004) November in lrls owihw r,i fet omte iecstekn frlac on realism. reliance an of of characteristic kind and like the the licences and reductionism explanatory committed interest 1979). the national effect, economic since of Skocpol in price, concepts are, high reified avoided 1; we a which at chapter therefore to world but relatively state, pluralism 1986, have the the two of (Mann conception I of dimensions, instrumentalist system and inter-state notion transnational Harvey the Skocpol’s equivalent and (ideological, or causally power economy of political), and sources four and in autonomous the is, position of economic our priority, conception of military, Mann’s assignment to an of such identical primacy without causal effect the But relative other. the that about the assert nothing To over us Skocpol. one tells and interact Mann or intersect as logics such two competition—economic sociologists of of historical pluralism of forms explanatory and imperialism the Weber or embraced an of logics surreptitiously have like Marxist distinct conception geopolitical—we a and two reads my within positing formally often and By only that competition Harvey’s framework. inter-state explanation follows: incorporating Marxist in as succeeds criticism ‘a reformulated This 2005b). is be Callinicos compare Iraq can 2006; on (Pozo-Martin one’ mine realist excellent of article an ooMri ie ea rm xml fti abgiytwrsraim:thus realism’: towards ‘ambiguity this of example prime a as me cites Pozo-Martin Capital epltclcmeiinpeae aiaim sbt h eein and Weberians the both as capitalism, predates competition Geopolitical eunt t pril ite?(ooMri 2006) (Pozo-Martin virtues? (partial) its to return ... 8 lxCallinicos Alex lxAivs(05,Rbr rne a ofrnei odndvtdt i work his to devoted London in conference a (at Brenner Robert (2005), Anievas Alex a axs o led el togeog lwt els,ol o to now only realism, to blow enough strong a dealt already not Marxism Has e rhr20) rmti esetv,teeegneo capitalist of emergence the perspective, this From 2002). Arthur see , Capital 8 .For Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 r e odvlptepoutv ocs(nti aeb rmtn aiaiteconomic capitalist promoting by case this productive (in the forces societies of productive which primacy’ the through ‘competitive mechanism develop relations). the the to provides led calls competition are (1993) inter-state which Carling in Alan forces, what of instance h idsraiaino a’i h 19 the but in capitalism, inter-state industrial war’ of of of of development capacity ‘industrialization the 1989). the Brewer process to the example, prior for in evident the (see, was increase activities advantage in their This spectacular organize and advantage the finance to to selective states particular, these in a in England then thanks, period) Holland, competition modern (first prevail early they of where in the states classes pursue those 1986). relations, (Brenner gives that subsistence production property of strategies of means the system the to given access is, gain a to relations—that within order must, property reproduction’ actors of as ‘rules feudal power, economic the political calls to Brenner and what from military specific arose of but it, imperatives have simply contingent would not Mann was the therefore, of Europe, modern inter- consequence early the and a the of medieval emergence late mobilize The in effective state-building. system and command and state more therefore expansion investment production territorial the of of this relations dynamic also Feudal a organize it. and fund to to weapons necessary estates peasants. resources and of and troops organization estates in political lords’ investment other requires seizing This lords expansion—through territorial omnaosdsge bu hte rnth bnoe h agrplan larger to came the Marx as abandoned that, is he view own not My 2001). Dussel or and 1977 whether Rosdolsky finished (compare about never disagree 298). he 1983, Commentators (Marx course, Market’ World 6. of Trade. International of Famously, 5. critique State. Property. his Landed 4. Labour. 2. that Capital. Wage On envisaged 3. 1. books: originally 6 into Marx ‘divided be there. to would economy employs political us he requires and that This in under method discourse theoretical capitals. own the subsumed Marx’s between within been state competition the of have place of the consider to in species sense said a the become be clarify therefore can to competition particular, geopolitical in it grounding, but which correct, theoretical me to precise seems still more It requires 1). Part 1992, Carling 4.4; chapter 2004b, (Callinicos aia,a euto hc h rcs fitrsaecmeiinbecame competition inter-state of process the at and the comes, 19 imperialism state the of which and moment of of The end of economic capitals. interdependence between result that both growing under subsumed Thus, a a interests. as about their capital, brought of their rivalries prosecution of support geopolitical the the on for dependent firms), increasingly nation-states private capitals as the individual primarily made processes and (constituted they the but capitals borders by among driven competition national were economic These within of investment. and power trade of economic internationalization of concentration increasing rnsi h atrpr fte19 transport the and of the part were weapons there latter Correlatively, technology the depended. in high now in relations success trends the economic military capitalist which domestically of on promotion systems produce the to in interest order an state every gave u—eeIg eodBenrtedvlpeto aiaitrltosof relations capitalist of development Brenner—the beyond go I But—here rtdvlpdtehsoia ruethsiysece u bv 0yasago years 20 above out sketched hastily argument historical the developed first I 9 o itrcltetet e osam(97.Ti rcs a ese san as seen be can process This (1987). Hobsbawm see treatment, historical a For th etr,a hssbupinbcmsahsoia reality. historical a becomes subsumption this as century, th etr tesdb uhrnfrbt an both for Bukharin by stressed century th etr MNil18,catr n 8) and 7 chapters 1982, (McNeill century oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does Capital h rto hs i ‘books’. six these of first the , Capital 9 and 541 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 vrl ruet u ahpsessseicpoete htaeirdcbeto irreducible the are in that earlier. place are posited properties their determinations specific by determinations the possesses explained of prior those each are complex at but determinations emerged more argument, these that overall analysis: problems and the overcome in to new stages order Rather, in and introduced abstract etc. value, progressively value, use labour, commodity, book—the the concrete of start the that at complexities developed of the course 2002). the non-deductive: in is (Mosley developed revenue, levels are rent of different and forms between interest different relationship of profit, into The rate commercial value general surplus and a of entrepreneurial of differentiation namely, formation the the to to commercial) rise and capitals, and give profit money individual that (productive, processes among property, capital landed first of and kinds value, different a surplus as between of thus system then the and economic distribution in complexity: capitalist the value the surplus traces to of of devoted whole, extraction III, degrees the Volume and production; increasing value of of process represent creation the levels analyses I Volume successive which in ntesae u edddvlpamto fter osrcinta srlvn to relevant is that construction theory here. discussion of method under problem a develop the addressing did that including he did ‘books’, But three he state. remaining that the the but Property, on for Landed planned and he whatever Labour Wage start really on not 3, and 2 Books for intended write 542 axsepaaoysrtg,adtriaini etudrto ipya social a as simply constitutive those understood from different best has phenomena. it is of social that purposes other powers determination the of causal means the For it a by things. constituted whom other strategy, phenomenon from for it Hegel, explanatory differentiating from identity Marx’s ultimately an derives something determination gives what of concept The 2005c). hudietf oceeeape fweeHre,I rohr fsmlroutlook similar of others the or of I, reification Harvey, where critics uncritical the of and and an examples Mearsheimer; to account concrete and Waltz relations one identify as should into lead such theorists should international realist take system. this by state why employed must of the concepts reason in no analysis elites is analysis political there such rival But of Marxist any interactions and words, any calculations strategies, other in necessarily, the is, in be there moment that conjunctures: to economic is not point could expect realist this it of of not, to did implication a us it One those if role. lead properties: explanatory distinctive an would from has play system method state it the different this course in Of what that case. properties imperialism, precisely of is has conceptualization competition, my competition and Harvey’s geopolitical to objection Pozo-Martin by have an cited I fact, as the As those Therefore, to production. determinations. irreducible introduced distinct of properties of previously specific of a mode enterprise has as determination capitalist larger such understood the each the noted, be of already within to theory is satisfactory determinations) a system of Barker developing state set Colin exist the rather, as always words, (or, that, states other 1970s, is determination In the State’ of plural). ‘the debate the on one derivation in no 4 state why the Book reasons during missing insisted many Marx’s (1978) the write of to (one try system should state the of understanding Marxist 10 si elknown, well is As o hspoeuesol,i yve,apyt n tep odvlpa develop to attempt any to apply view, my in should, procedure this Now lxCallinicos Alex o uhmr ntentr n ifiute fti rcdr,seCliio (2001, Callinicos see procedure, this of difficulties and nature the on more much For Capital efudhmeffre oicroaemc ftemtra ehad he material the of much incorporate to forced himself found he , Capital scnevda ut-eeldtertclstructure theoretical multi-levelled a as conceived is Capital r o oeo cnand nteconcepts the in ‘contained’ somehow not are 10 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 19) oho hm ieBok ru o h tutrlitreedneo h tt and state the of interdependence structural the for Harman argue and Block, (1983) like Miliband capital. Compare whom, Ronge view. of and similar (Offe both a and depends’ (1991), expresses guaranteeing its (2006) power—in which Brenner own upon 250). its 1982, process the of of accumulation sake power the “healthy” the interested—for a “using” be safeguarding in must interested the state not between the are interdependence but accumulation symmetrical of state, agents a ‘The posit capital: not and do state they although Ronge, Volker and lxne ed 19,epcal hpe ) o neapeo nefcierealist effective an of and as example War such an Cold constructivists (1994–1995). For Mearsheimer the by see 3). respects, of offered chapter these both end international especially in contesting the challenge the (1999, in after of Wendt example, side—for harmony Alexander conceptions same inter-state idealist the on of criticizing which themselves on expectations find issues be will exaggerated will there realists (1994), Rosenberg and Justin Marxists by notably made realism of criticisms ae nidpnetcnrbto oorudrtnigo h contemporary the of of understanding success our capitalism. the of to of evolution contribution part independent is state an it of makes development; of interactions its constitutive in conflicts and radically class imperialism stage calculations and any be tendencies strategies, crisis at More will the the capitalism of warnings. approach context sets the general this in it managers vague that following issue in analysis than distinctive Marxist rather any error, importantly, this committed have tt aaes em ou ob aal ffutu xeso oteinternational the to extension fruitful of capable be and to arena. capitalists us between to interests seems of managers, non-identity state a of of merit the assumption great the the while has from which reasons, starting idea, This of 1987). (Block myriad accumulation capital the a of by generated process resources for the on dependent support is state individual state any of need power relative capitalists other: alliance into that it the 1970s, draw will the groups with Callinicos, these in of Block each and by Fred interests distinctive (Ashman by its pioneered of managers pursuit idea, the state the on and builds capitalists argument This actors, 2006). of such groups provide two reproduction must of of rules mode the of capitalist account an and in the grounded economic be of must in Any interrelation competition geopolitical the system tendencies. that argue state these I to the and for Ashman of actors Sam responsible micro-mechanisms. place processes individual the the give become of realize relations theory macro-tendencies that capitalist ways Marx’s how incentives in provides the argument behave showing of to kind by thanks This capital. operative ‘micro-foundations’ on return with the in theory worker fall per investment a in rise of hence a to rate and leading higher-than-average capitals, other a by imitated seeking then capitals and profit by introduced technological of are introduction the that on depends innovations profit crises of of theory rate Marx’s general to (Bidet the central capitalism of fall across tendency to to the example, ascribed arguments important most he the his that take To tendencies elaborated 2000). systemic the and explain concepts to structures his recast of drafts Marx successive as Bidet Jacques shown, As mode. capitalist has the of theorization larger a within determinations 12 11 ti,hwvr o nuht oi h tt ytma itntstof set distinct a as system state the posit to enough not however, is, It eetees h mlcto fti oiinwl eta,dsieteetrl valid entirely the despite that, be will position this of implication the Nevertheless, oehtaaooscneto a loptfradi h 90 yCasOffe Claus by 1970s the in forward put also was conception analogous somewhat A 12 htHre,i ostaigtebhvoro h uhadministration, Bush the of behaviour the situating so in Harvey, that Capital 11 ebcm nraigyrlato iigcompetitive citing on reliant increasingly became he , oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does h new The 543 Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 ibet iewyt eid fisaiiyi hc h e orlto a be can correlation new the which force: in of instability proof of the through periods only to and established way temporary powers, give necessarily capitalist to are arrangements the liable the power—such altering among constantly of and is forces distribution development agreements global capitalist of of International dynamism correlation the misleading. that existing but—given profoundly the is register analysis possibility political cartels base organization a to progressive that unequally such the argues of but on result conceivable, extremely Lenin’s a theoretically in is as capitalism is monopoly plays of world combined this ultimate single markets the role a that and of concedes the Lenin formation and ultra-imperialism. see uneven of to theory investment Kautsky’s to interesting of critique is to tendency It world geographically. access single the distributed a in globe calls where the unify Trotsky to system tends fact capitalism Leon words, historical that other is In what contingent answer development. My plural? a is: states keep merely there to is there tends it Or that accumulation’? capitalism Is in ‘political inherent of states? anything processes pre-capitalist many the from there inherited are Why system. rudsml oasm hti are vrt h oiia.Altesm,there same, an the it All is already that political. believe have this the to to I reason course, good over what be Of carries to contradict it entity. seem would that would single assume it to a economic: uneven simply into the argued more, to capitals’ the restricted subverts ‘many is constantly argument is that integrate suggests, destabilizing what Lenin to economically force, this efforts and, is is and It capitalism. development productivity in inherent raises Uneven both search the that profits. by development driven innovation differential of only is round this disequilibrating for But new development). see a combined of of might the ‘law’ beginning (we the the of profits of kernel surplus source economic the the the the as hence eliminating this and generalized, is are advantage, innovations that competitive when only profits innovator’s happens sectoral capitalism. this differential of that the dynamism true of the is for below It pursuit responsible forces production productive the the of of thus development is costs increasing It by innovator’s profits average. that, the innovation surplus seeking of technological reduces by source is one productivity, important position is more Monopoly market much profits). but their (surplus profits, capitals rate improve average individual or the that than are idea maintain higher two the The to on development. impelled rests uneven competition of are law of the analysis calls Marx’s he related. what by governed also and 544 neligti rueti ei’ iwta aiaimi neetydynamic inherently is capitalism that view Lenin’s is argument this Underlying l fti,hwvr esteqeto ftepua hrce ftestate the of character plural the of question the begs however, this, of All rtet er’tm h eaiesrnt fteipraitpwr ilhave will powers imperialist the of strength miserable relative the a ten in time that remained was ‘conceivable’ years’ it Is way. Germany twenty same the of or in Britain ago the Russia the with of for compared century that Japan with time; compared degree, that a is strength equal capitalist these Half her an if country, of is insignificant capitalism. to countries or strength under industry, change of the branches not impossible trusts, And does undertakings, different etc. division of development the strength, in military participants the financial, of economic, calculation influence, a general of is spheres of etc., division colonies, the for interests, capitalism under basis conceivable only The lxCallinicos Alex un hne?I soto h usin Lnn16,295) 1964, (Lenin question. the of out is It changed? strength does ar vr h ednynot tendency the over: carry ftoepriiaig their participating, those of even Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 aibe aesgetdi ale okta h rtadscn avso the of halves second and least) first the at historically that (immediately is work interrelate earlier are they in 20 and how suggested actors, have structure different I of in variable. interests differ the by competition supported of forms these osqec fhwatr’rlso erdcincm odpn nteracs omeans to 1986. access Brenner their see on market: depend the to a come through turn reproduction subsistence in of is of rules which way capitalism, actors’ developed under imperative how development more one of combined much consequence the to the subject with does, are societies consistent Rosenberg transhistorical which as perfectly a in acknowledges, is of one argument that basis provided This the here, inter-societal. development the combined of making and for theory argument uneven interesting of extremely an conception developed Trotsky’s has 2007) (2006, Rosenberg Justin af h r fAn ae’ Tit er’Wro h 20 the of War Years’ ‘Thirty Mayer’s Arno of era the half, eerhaeds aiaitipraimi etudrto,Icam sthe as claim, ( I since But, understood, competition. best geopolitical empirical and is shape economic to imperialism of help might then, intersection Capitalist argument conclude, this agendas. me how towards Let research gesture mode. a that the least geopolitical at of within and with whether, system determinations state has establish necessary the This to are production, been of abstraction. competition mode has theoretical capitalist aim of of theory my level Marxist that high given a unavoidable, at been proceeded has argument My competition inter-state of patterns Changing plural. system state the keeping capitalism in under role resources irreducible by of an distribution generated play uneven pulls of geographically nature centrifugal exclusive inherently the and the national intense Nevertheless, of the sovereignty. producing fission territorial in territorial and part modern the formation its the of plays Moreover, doubt specificities states. no the identities into explain world the must of Asia), division impact 2003, in irreducible lasting the past imperialism Harvey example, a Japanese for (consider, reflecting support of history many 7–10; recent to contingencies, more of others 1991, necessary capitalism, sorts to all (Harman resources course, the apparatuses Of providing 101–108). state and functioning demanding base effectively territorial both the provide states, relations economic of that capitalist suggested of independently clusterings have dense picture Harvey such global and contradict Harman accentuates—the not development. unchanged—indeed does uneven China leaves of coastal it extension incorporate since to The Triad analysis, feature. the this of contingent hub a allow Asian an not East will thus mode, the is that of capitalist development the profits Uneven lead. of surplus their tendency strengthen generating inherent even innovations and maintain the to able make them be to to likely are continue concentrations to Success such neoclassical 2006). enjoying skilled (Ashman regions by economy and those world success: predicted markets the reinforces investment, of differences regions of privileged economic concentration certain in spatial of labour the up to evening rather process but the accumulation theory, global to the not that economists leads political Marxist would by pattern, thematized state. its transnational in a shifts construct destabilizing to to attempts subvert but constantly development, uneven to simply th 13 hsagmn a efrhrrifre yteeiec increasingly evidence the by reinforced further be can argument This etr r infiatydfeet(o xml,Cliio 91.I h first the In 1991). Callinicos example, (for different significantly are century mgaeu oGwnfrepaiigterl fcletv dniyformation. identity collective of role the emphasizing for Gowan to grateful am I oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does th 13 etr’(1914–1945), century’ e hypothese per 545 ) Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 h eln ftewae ftesproe lc undott ernigo a on running be to out occur turned blocs could superpower the competition clock. of but faster weaker to economic onwards, the 1960s simultaneously late of space, the decline able from the that destabilizing was increasingly became Within US it indeed, of the and, space. political transnational polarization But single economic a blocs. the into capitalism and rival advanced the to and of regions two confronted the leading economic all into integrate US, ideologically, of system the and dissociation state 20 power, the partial geopolitically the hegemonic of a Union new half by Soviet second The marked The competition. contrast, status. resources geopolitical the hegemonic naval by lost to it its was, process claim the and century any in but sustain industrial latter, to the to was its wars with required world allying two both by in to former itself came challenged the it found defeat solution hegemon, The that US. a the powers and to Germany had supremacy: two system state 1981, by the (Mayer closest confronted reinforcing the mutually hitherto were Britain, 329). competition geopolitical and economic 546 Sgoa taeydvlpdb aia coas(o xml,Klo17 n Williams and a 1970 Kolko between example, convergence (for intriguing scholars of an radical interpretation by critical be 1991). the developed to and strategy right seem libertarian global the US does with state associated there realism American a of here the identifying practitioner by in hegemony: pursuit them the global beyond for goes of responsible assumptions, coalition’ realist liberal from ‘multinational starting domestic while that, 1940s the ucmsa h eal iuto;o h otay tcnevscptls economic capitalist such conceives privilege it contrary, not the does on provide economy situation; to political default unable the Marxist as be But outcomes states. would all hegemons for otherwise goods positive- a since that public on important possible, undoubtedly optimum necessarily are theory is Pareto It games a changing. as economic sum in definition interest economy by their an has as actor for market equilibrium no that treats rely a it since liberals conceives game, in But positive-sum which economy other. than orthodoxy, world each rather liberal neoclassical cooperate, against to a incentives balance of strong the 1940s to states recognize capitalist the leading to since the free development providing are (Pape emerge the internationalists, to liberal of US like the significance Marxists, against by balancing’ 2005). realists ‘soft for Paul than posed 2005; more puzzle anything the of perspective failure this easier, the from much is understand It to perplexities. example, these for of some unravelling to contribution important relations than contradictory of and pattern complex more overall much suggest. is the they Gindin’s states But capitalist and leading 1999). Panitch’s the of (Gowan among evidence empire’ are regulating of ‘informal key markets, 1970s American the financial early provides global the that of Regime since Street mechanisms development Dollar-Wall financial process. the the this calls with of international Gowan of along frame what importance, political from states—the forms the and provide power role capitalist etc— Their institutionalized UN, economic NATO, leading G8, The in the the institutions, shifts challenges. among preventing geopolitical cooperation leadership and its into global under developing constructed genuinely space 1945 transnational after the making by hegemony 14 h ido axs prahIhv ogtt eeo eecnmk an make can here develop to sought have I approach Marxist of kind The its perpetuate to seeking been has US the War, Cold the of end the Since lxCallinicos Alex an 20)ofr necpinlyitrsigteteto Sgadsrtg since strategy grand US of treatment interesting exceptionally an offers (2006) Layne 14 th Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 alncs lx(97 Ipraim aiaim n h tt today’, state the and capitalism, ‘Imperialism, (1987) Alex Callinicos, (2004) Barry Buzan, rwr on(1989) John imperialism?’, Brewer, not, is what and is, ‘What (2006) Robert Brenner, alncs lx(04)‘axs n h international’, (2004b) Alex the Callinicos, and ‘Marxism (2004a) Anthony Alex and Callinicos, Held David in (2003) governance’ Alex global Callinicos, and Robert ‘Marxism in (2002) imperialism’ Alex analysing Callinicos, and capitalism ‘Periodizing (2001) Alex today’, imperialism Callinicos, and ‘Marxism (1991) Alex Callinicos, (1972) Nikolai Bukharin, rne,Rbr (2002) Robert Brenner, akr oi 17)‘ oeo h hoyo aiaitstates’, capitalist of theory the on note ‘A (1978) Colin Barker, rne,Rbr 18)‘h oilbsso cnmcdvlpet nJh omr(ed) turbulence’, Roemer global John of in economics ‘The development’ (1998) economic Robert of Brenner, basis social ‘The (1986) Robert Brenner, system’, state the and accumulation ‘Capital (2006) Callinicos Alex and Sam University Ashman, dissertation, (PhD development’ uneven as ‘Globalization Campbell (2006) Martha Sam in Ashman, capitals’ many and competition ‘Capital, (2002) J Christopher unravelling—2’, Arthur, ‘Hegemony (2005b) Giovanni unravelling—1’, Arrighi, ‘Hegemony (2005a) Giovanni Arrighi, rne,Rbr 18)‘h gainroso uoencapitalism’, European of roots agrarian ‘The (1983) Robert Brenner, (2005) Atilio Boron, (1987) Fred Block, (2000) Jacques Bidet, (2005) Walden Bello, Callinicos’, Alex of ‘Review (2005) Alexander Anievas, these 21 among the rivalries in unfolding geopolitics The shape internationalism. will that than liberal power concentrations economic This by of we as concentrations development. constituted, geographical offered economy extreme uneven world by unleashing a of on seen, and perspective have plausible processes capitals, more much self-reinforcing among a seems and and capitalists crises of and economic antagonisms workers generating and between presupposing interest conflictual, inherently as relations eoe sntasbttt o hsitleta fot u tcnpoiei with it References provide been can has it but paper how effort, this of intellectual which this sense for tools. to make useful substitute to apparatus some a required theoretical not be is Marxist will devoted The scholars develops. many by it study intensive and 79–105 nentoa Relations International world the for Westra, Richard (eds) McGrew and Westra Richard Ito, Development Makoto Albritton, 71–115 2:35, nltclMarxism Analytical 16–113 Materialism Historical Birmingham) of (eds) Reuten Geert and Affairs International oe:teBs diitainspasfrteworld the for plans Harvey, administration’s Bush the power: h e imperialism new The Cmrde Polity) (Cambridge: Bsnsoe agae,230–245 Palgrave), (Basingstoke: eiigsaetheory state Revising oenn globalization Governing h ieso power of sinews The mieadimperialism and Empire h ntdSae n h ra powers great the and States United The iemso domination of Dilemmas u ar uCapital? du faire Que 82 303–306 18:2, , h omadtebubble the and boom The Cmrde abig nvriyPes,23–53 Press), University Cambridge (Cambridge: h e adrn fAeia oe:teBs diitainsplans administration’s Bush the power: American of Mandarins new The aighistory Making 44 107–131 14:4, , ,426–433 6, , meils n ol economy world and Imperialism h umnto fcapital of culmination The xod xodUiest rs,2003, Press, University Oxford Oxford, , Piaepi:Tml nvriyPress) University Temple (Philadelphia: Lie:Brill) (Leiden: Lno:Routledge) (London: Cmrde oiy,249–266 Polity), (Cambridge: Prs rse nvriarsd France) de Universitaires Presses (Paris: Lno:Zed) (London: NwYr:Mtooia Books) Metropolitan York: (New oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does Lno:Verso) (London: Bsnsoe agae,128–148 Palgrave), (Basingstoke: abig,Plt,20,adDavid and 2003, Polity, Cambridge, , Lno:Merlin) (London: e etReview Left New e etReview Left New Cmrde Polity) (Cambridge: st nentoa Socialism International h e adrn fAmerican of Mandarins new The rts ora fPltc and Politics of Journal British etr.Crflthought Careful century. e etReview Left New aia n Class and Capital itrclMaterialism Historical nentoa Socialism International atadPresent and Past hsso Capitalist of Phases abig eiwof Review Cambridge I3,23–80 II:32, , I3,83–116 II:33, , :2,1–265 I:229, , ,118–129 4, , :0 3–48 2:50, , 14:4, , 97, , 547 , Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 iiad ap 18)‘tt oe n ls interests’, class and power ‘State (1983) Ralph Miliband, erhie,Jh 19–95 Tefalse (2001) John Mearsheimer, ‘The (1994–1995) Friedrich and John Marx Mearsheimer, Karl (1982) in H William 1858’ McNeill, April (1981) 2 J Arno Engels, Mayer, Friedrich to ‘Letter (1983) Karl Marx, (1993) Michael Mann, (1986) Michael Mann, (1972) Bukharin Nikolai and Rosa capitalism’, Luxemburg, of stage highest the ‘Imperialism, (1964) I Vladimir Lenin, ahr ans(05 Itrainltasomto n h essec fterritoriality’, (2006) of Christopher persistence Layne, the and transformation ‘International (2005) Hazel Hannes and Lacher, Rupert Mark in system’ international the globalisation’, of sense ‘Making and (2002) Hannes Lacher, hegemony (1970) Gabriel States Kolko, ‘United (2006) Ray Kiely, debate’, imperialism-globalization the and expansion ‘Capitalist (2005) (ed) Ray Kiely, Riddell John in ‘Imperialism’ (1984) Karl Kautsky, utntn aulP(99 Telnl superpower’, lonely ‘The (1999) P Samuel Huntington, (1987) J Eric Hobsbawm, economy’, political global and ‘Imperialism (2005a) Alex Callinicos, 548 alncs lx(05)‘rq ucu fwrdpolitics’, world of fulcrum ‘Iraq: (2005b) Alex Callinicos, ed ai,AtoyMGe,DvdGlbatadJnta ertn(1999) Perraton Jonathan and Goldblatt David McGrew, Anthony David, Held, (2003) David Harvey, capitalism’, (1982) of David rise Harvey, ‘The (2004) Chris imperialism’, Harman, today’, ‘Analysing capitalism (2003) and Chris state Harman, ‘The capitalism’, (1991) to Chris feudalism Harman, ‘From (1989) (2004) Chris Negri Harman, Antonio and Michael Hardt, (1999) Peter Gowan, (1981) of Robert drafts four Gilpin, ‘The (2001) Enrique Dussel, outbound’, ‘Capital (2005) materialism’, Vivek Chibber, historical and Marxism ‘Analytical (1993) Alan Carling, (1994) (1992) Haynes Alan Mike Carling, and Harman Chris Rees, John Alex, Callinicos, dialectic’, new the ‘Against (2005c) Alex Callinicos, aldy rd(02 Tepritneo meils’i akRpr n ae Smith Hazel (2000) and Negri Rupert Antonio Mark and in Michael Hardt, imperialism’ of persistence ‘The (2002) Fred Halliday, Sam and Panitch Leo to reply a imperialism: of sense ‘Making (2006) Alex Callinicos, nentoa Security International (eds) Engels Press) Lane) Allen (London: 185–304 Progress), (Moscow: eiwo nentoa oiia Economy Political International of Review (eds) Smith Affairs International Development and Relations International 1907–1916 documents: international: :0,109–127 2:108, transformations Press) 31–65 57:1, imperialism (eds) Gindin’, lxCallinicos Alex itrclmtraimadglobalization and materialism Historical nentoa Socialism International Lno:Bookmarks) (London: itrclmtraimadglobalization and materialism Historical olce works Collected Cmrde Polity) (Cambridge: oildivision Social h lblgamble global The h essec fteace regime ancien the of persistence The h oiiso war of politics The h ore fsca power social of sources The h e imperialism new The capital to limits The politics world in change and War 92 205–221 19:2, , h ore fsca power social of sources The 93 5–49 19:3, , h g fempire of age The h rgd fgetpwrpolitics power great of tragedy The h ec fillusions of peace The h usi fpower of pursuit The o L(ocw rges,296–204 Progress), (Moscow: XL Vol , :1,196–203 2:110, , Lno:Verso) (London: Lno:Verso) (London: NwYr:Mnd,179–183 Monad), York: (New NwYr:Vintage) York: (New Ofr:Blackwell) (Oxford: ,8,27–57 Ofr:Ofr nvriyPress) University Oxford (Oxford: Lno:Wiefl Nicolson) & Weidenfeld (London: Multitude Empire Capital e etReview Left New 21 26–52 12:1, , Cmrde abig nvriyPress) University Cambridge (Cambridge: I , nentoa Socialism International Lno:Rulde,75–89 Routledge), (London: Ihc:CrelUiest Press) University Cornell (Ithaca: Ofr:Blackwell) (Oxford: nentoa Socialism International rms fitrainlinstitutions’, international of promise meils n h cuuaino capital of accumulation the and Imperialism ’, I(abig:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge (Cambridge: II , Cmrde avr nvriyPress) University Harvard (Cambridge: ehnigMarxism Rethinking itrclMaterialism Historical NwYr:Penguin) York: (New Lno:Rulde,147–164 Routledge), (London: Cmrde abig University Cambridge (Cambridge: nentoa Socialism International NwYr:Pantheon) York: (New nentoa Socialism International oeg Affairs Foreign hr ol Quarterly World Third ei’ tugefrarevolutionary a for struggle Lenin’s e etReview Left New I3,151–158 II:36, , NwYr:W otn&Co) & Norton WW York: (New :0,53–86 2:102, , nentoa Socialism International abig eiwof Review Cambridge :9 3–81 2:99, , axs n h new the and Marxism 82 35–49 78:2, , 31 10–26 13:1, , olce works, Collected cec n Society and Science :3,57–68 I:138, , 32 41–59 13:2, , :5 35–87 2:45, , :1 3–54 2:51, , 6 593–608 26, , ora of Journal Global XXII , , Downloaded By: [2007 LungHwa University of Science and Technology ( Trial of Full Package )] At: 18:33 22 December 2007 at,Kneh(00 Srcua els fe h odwar’, cold the after realism ‘Structural (2000) Kenneth Waltz, at,Kneh(93 Teeegn tutr fitrainlpolitics’, international of structure emerging ‘The (1993) Kenneth Waltz, (2003) Benno Teschke, es on(2006) John Rees, ilas ila plmn(1991) Appleman William Williams, (1999) Alexander Wendt, kco,Tea(1979) Theda Skocpol, (2004) Claude Serfati, (2002) (eds) Smith Hazel and Mark Rupert, sociology?’, bullshit”’, historical “higher the international relations: ‘International no (2007) Justin there Rosenberg, is ‘Why (2006) Justin post-mortem’, Rosenberg, a theory: ‘Globalization (2005) Justin Rosenberg, (1994) Justin Rosenberg, (1977) Roman Rosdolsky, (2004) William Robinson, the and imperialism globalization, knot: primacy’, Gordian US tougher of ‘A age (2006) the Gonzalo in Pozo-Martin, balancing ‘Soft (2005) TV States’, Paul, United the against balancing ‘Soft (2005) reply A economy”—a Robert political Pape, global and ‘“Imperialism (2006) Gindin Sam and Leo Panitch, capital’, global ‘Superintending (2005) Gindin Sam and Leo Panitch, od le (2003) (eds) Smith M Hazel Ellen and Wood, Rupert Mark in states’ national capital, ‘Global (2002) M Ellen Wood, olot,WlimC(99 Tesaiiyo nplrworld’, unipolar a of stability ‘The (1999) C William Wohlforth, aic,LoadSmGni 20)‘iac n mrcnepr’i e aic and Panitch Leo in empire’ American and Leo ‘Finance in (2004) Gindin empire’ Sam American and and Leo Panitch, capitalism ‘Global (2003) Gindin Sam and Leo Panitch, oly rd(02 Hsiebohr:Mr’ hoyo h itiuino upu-au in surplus-value of distribution the of theory Marx’s brothers: ‘Hostile (2002) Fred Mosley, fe lu n okrRne(92 Tee nteter ftesae nAtoyGiddens Anthony in state’ the of theory the on ‘Theses (1982) Ronge Volker and Claus Offe, Security nvriyPress) University 5–41 Routledge) 450–482 44:4, Relations International of Journal 2–74 Press) University state’, the of problem 7–45 Callinicos’, Alex to 101–123 itrclmtraimadglobalization and materialism Historical 5–41 otn&Co) & Norton oi es(eds) Leys Colin 1–42 (eds) Merlin), Leys Colin and Panitch 249–256 Press), California of o I of III Vol n ai ed(eds) Held David and 65–101 Palgrave), (Basingstoke: 82 44–79 18:2, , Capital meils n Resistance and Imperialism nMrh apeladGetRue (eds) Reuten Geert and Campbell Martha in ’ h mierlae:scaitrgse 2005 register socialist reloaded: empire The Impe ttsadsca revolutions social and States mieo capital of Empire h yho 1648 of myth The nentoa Socialism International h mieo ii society civil of empire The hoyo lblcapitalism global of theory A abig eiwo nentoa Affairs International of Review Cambridge ´ ‘Capital’ Marx’s of making The lse,pwr n conflict and power, Classes, ilsee militarisme et rialisme oilter fitrainlpolitics international of theory Social h e meilcalne oils eitr2004 register socialist challenge: imperial new The 23 307–340 12:3, , h rgd fAeia diplomacy American of tragedy The Lno:Verso) (London: Lno:Verso) (London: Lno:Rulde,17–39 Routledge), (London: itrclmtraimadglobalization and materialism Historical Lno:Routledge) (London: :0,194–199 2:109, , oscptls edtesaesystem? state the need capitalism Does Luan:Eiin aedeux) Page Editions (Lausanne: Cmrde abig nvriyPress) University Cambridge (Cambridge: Lno:Verso) (London: Bree n o nee:University Angeles: Los and (Berkeley Blioe ayad on Hopkins Johns Maryland: (Baltimore, Lno:Pluto) (London: nentoa Security International Lno:Mri) 46–81 Merlin), (London: nentoa Security International nentoa Security International nentoa Security International 92 223–242 19:2, , Cmrde Cambridge (Cambridge: nentoa Politics International h umnto fcapital of culmination The e etReview Left New nentoa Politics International NwYr:WW York: (New 01 46–71 30:1, , International (London: (London: European II:35, , 25:1, , 24:1, , 20:1, , 42, , 549 ,