A Critique of Panitch and Gindin's Theory of American Empire

Garrod, J. Z.

doi:10.1521/siso.2015.79.1.38

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite their many differences, these contemporary theories of imperialism and dependency all tend to share the view that globalization represents some form of return to For a close critique of this interpretation, see Garrod (2015). 15 the conditions of the earlier stage of imperialism and financialization that characterized the late 19th and early 20th centuries.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

From the National to the Global: The Transformation of the Royal Bank of Canada, 1864–2014

Garrod¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many scholars today treat globalization as a new form of imperialism, in which the global political economy remains constituted by competing national capitals and their respective nation-states. This view is shared by many Canadian political economists who, carrying on a longstanding debate, continue to argue that Canada should be understood as either a secondary imperialist power or a dependency of the American empire. In this dissertation, I argue that contemporary theories of imperialism and dependency neglect a number of qualitative changes to the global political economy over the last 40 years that challenge the conceptual framework on which they are based. Through a comparativehistorical analysis of the changing assemblages of territory, authority, and rights that have sustained the Royal Bank of Canada's activities from 1864 to 2014, I argue that we should instead treat globalization as a novel epoch constituted by a centrifugal organizing dynamic that is moving the rights of capital and the authority over those rights to the transnational level. I claim that this process is transforming the nation-state from a capability to grow and develop national capitals into a capability for globalizing capitals as a result of new rights that restrict the ability of the nation-state to legislate against corporate interests. The dissertation concludes by reflecting on what this means for the future of Canadian liberal democracy and the struggle against global capitalism.ii Acknowledgements I am tempted to begin this section like Bruce Curtis and talk about the various experiences I've had while writing this dissertation rather than a long list of thanks. But I can't do that. There are too many wonderful people that contributed to this dissertation in one way or another simply by being themselves and I would be remiss not to mention them. To start, I'd like to thank Bruce himself, who shaped an unruly gang of doctoral students into scholars. Few of us would be where we are today without being challenged by his questions on epistemology and ontology-questions that I sometimes reflect on when I can't sleep at night; it doesn't help. I'd also like to thank Alexis Shotwell and Aaron Doyle for their efforts to teach me about teaching; it is rare to find scholars who care about teaching as much as they do and it is inspiring to see them work. A huge thanks must go out to Kara Brisson-Boivin, Mathieu Charbonneau, and the late Blake MacMillan. Their friendship, compassion, and understanding made all the difference; I treasure the time we spent together. I must also offer an immense thanks to my committee members Laura Macdonald and Janet Siltanen. Their comments on earlier drafts were incredibly helpful and they played a big role in shaping my ideas into a dissertation; furthermore, their kindness throughout the process was an inspiring model of how to be in the world.

show abstract

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%