Does capitalism need the state system?

Abstract

Contemporary Marxist students of international relations, like their mainstream counterparts, disagree over whether geopolitics has a future. Many believe that it has none, either because globalized capitalism has overcome the nation-state or because the 'informal empire' of the United States has overridden inter-state conflict. This article supports those who argue that significant economic and political conflicts persist among the main capitalist states. It does so by exploring the question of whether, in Marxist theory, the capitalist economic system and the international system of states are necessarily or contingently related. Marx's method in Capital offers, it is argued, a way of non-reductively incorporating the state system within the capitalist mode of production. This argument provides the basis for a partial reconciliation of Marxism and realism. More importantly, it offers a theoretical framework in which to explore the scope for inter-state conflict in the 21 st century.

Crime or social harm? A dialectical perspective

“…For instance, in our contemporary global economic system, which is politically administered through a system of nation-states, there is a tendency for national governments to employ their geopolitical power-which is always unevenly distributed-to obtain strategic advantages, which at its most extreme is expressed in armed conflict [1,4,8,10]. However, with the world's class divided population, bound into national blocs under the intellectual and political leadership of the national bourgeoisie, the most violent expression of economic and geopolitical competition i.e.…”

Pojęcia imperium i imperializm w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych

“…W tym znaczeniu mo¿na j¹ uznaae za prekursorkê podejoecia odrzucaj¹cego perspektywê pojedynczego pañstwa narodowego na rzecz eksponowania relacji miêdzy kapitalistycznym centrum a zdominowanymi peryferiami 71 . W ostatnich latach obserwowaae mo¿na tak¿e powrót szerszego zainteresowania problemem relacji miêdzy teori¹ polityczn¹ i imperium, szczególnie w XVIII i XIX wieku 72 oraz rozwa¿aniami nad wspó³czesnym imperium amerykañskim 73 , czy te¿ wspó³czesn¹ rywalizacj¹ imperialistyczn¹ 74 . Imperia i imperializmy mo¿na uznaae za najbardziej skuteczne wehiku³y kszta³towa-nia i realizacji mechanizmu mieszania siê nierówno rozwiniêtych sposobów produkcji, struktur spo³ecznych i ró¿norodnych kultur oraz ³¹czenia ich w hierarchiczne formy.…”

The lacuna of capital, the state and war? The lost global history and theory of Eastern agency

“…His treatment of the role of ideology, of the relationship between the state and capital and of the role of geopolitics and international capitalism is a highly impressive achievement for any theory, let alone a Marxist one, and provides a breath of fresh ontological air. Indeed, in the context of NTIR, it goes further than the heroic efforts made by Alex Callinicos (2007), whose New Trotskyist article was the subject of a Cambridge Review of International Affairs forum, in which my own response critiqued his self-proclaimed non-reductionist ontology (Hobson 2007 and. Indeed, in my view Anievas has taken the original pioneering anti-reductionist insights that were trail-blazed by Louis Althusser (1969) and Nicos Poulantzas (1973) But with the exception of his treatment of Hitler's racism, I feel that a full interrogation of Anievas's engagement with non-reductionism is mostly redundant for two reasons: first, because of his largely exceptional efforts in refuting this charge and second, because I now feel that Marxists have generally become rather too hung up with this issue.…”