Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.41
J. Castro-Rea
It is commonly accepted that North America is a lopsided global region, where a global hegemon imposes its will over two weaker neighbours that depend on its every whim and action. However, this vision misses the crucial contribution that Mexico and Canada have historically made, and still make, to the expansion and current prosperity of the United States. Measured in terms of territorial outreach, natural resources, specialized or manual labour, markets, defence, and so forth, the United States would not be what it is now and couldn’t thrive as an ongoing global power without the contribution of its two immediate neighbours. This chapter reviews the historical evidence and the contemporary record to demonstrate that North America is a global region where interdependence, although asymmetric, has been and still is a basic defining issue.
{"title":"Asymmetric Interdependence","authors":"J. Castro-Rea","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.41","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonly accepted that North America is a lopsided global region, where a global hegemon imposes its will over two weaker neighbours that depend on its every whim and action. However, this vision misses the crucial contribution that Mexico and Canada have historically made, and still make, to the expansion and current prosperity of the United States. Measured in terms of territorial outreach, natural resources, specialized or manual labour, markets, defence, and so forth, the United States would not be what it is now and couldn’t thrive as an ongoing global power without the contribution of its two immediate neighbours. This chapter reviews the historical evidence and the contemporary record to demonstrate that North America is a global region where interdependence, although asymmetric, has been and still is a basic defining issue.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115786209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.4
S. Moosvi
What is now called a ‘business cycle’ or a periodic revisiting of crises, each marked by sudden spurts of bankruptcies and sharp descents in market prices, has been a regular feature of the history of capitalism, even in its mercantilist and early colonial phase—its beginning marked, for example, in England, by the ‘South Sea bubble’ of 1720. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England in the latter half of the eighteenth century, the periodic crisis became one of production, that is, of a huge apparent mismatch between excessive supply and receding demand. This chapter attempts to place the recurring economic crises that have occurred during the history of modern capitalism in the changing contexts of capital accumulation and investment, and changing forms of imperialism. It discusses the work of several economic theorists, including Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, J. A. Schumpeter, Rosa Luxemburg, V. I. Lenin, and Arghiri Emmanuel. The chapter suggests a theoretical question: Would a socialist economy, if fully industrialized, also be subject to fluctuations resembling capitalist trade cycles?
{"title":"Capitalism, Imperialism, and Crises","authors":"S. Moosvi","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.4","url":null,"abstract":"What is now called a ‘business cycle’ or a periodic revisiting of crises, each marked by sudden spurts of bankruptcies and sharp descents in market prices, has been a regular feature of the history of capitalism, even in its mercantilist and early colonial phase—its beginning marked, for example, in England, by the ‘South Sea bubble’ of 1720. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England in the latter half of the eighteenth century, the periodic crisis became one of production, that is, of a huge apparent mismatch between excessive supply and receding demand. This chapter attempts to place the recurring economic crises that have occurred during the history of modern capitalism in the changing contexts of capital accumulation and investment, and changing forms of imperialism. It discusses the work of several economic theorists, including Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, J. A. Schumpeter, Rosa Luxemburg, V. I. Lenin, and Arghiri Emmanuel. The chapter suggests a theoretical question: Would a socialist economy, if fully industrialized, also be subject to fluctuations resembling capitalist trade cycles?","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115860175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.45
N. Mandaci
Recent studies on land grabbing in Southeast Europe suggest that parts of the region are re-experiencing in the post-socialist era what happened in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries due to the decline of the Ottoman land tenure system, under identical conditions involving fundamental sociopolitical transformations and integration with global capitalism. During these historical phases, the processes of enclosure developed in varying degrees in accord with the topographical and societal conditions of the societies as well as geographical proximity to the European capitalist centres. Today, despite growing connections with the European Union, the whole region has remained on the periphery of the capitalist Western European core, which is specialized in technology and knowledge, while retaining the position as agrarian societies and neat providers of raw materials and food to industrialized Western centres. This chapter suggests that although the regime types governing those nations change throughout historical phases, primitive accumulation practices that harm the small peasantry have been sustained so far under different banners. Land grab in those countries also invokes a public passivity, which symptomizes the prevalence of a historic bloc—as coined by Gramsci—regarding the unquestionability of the liberalization on the land system and intra-EU market dynamics and consequently the current practices of enclosure that turns land into a fictive financial asset favouring beneficiaries other than the local peasantry.
{"title":"Land Grabbing in Southeastern Europe in Historical Context","authors":"N. Mandaci","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.45","url":null,"abstract":"Recent studies on land grabbing in Southeast Europe suggest that parts of the region are re-experiencing in the post-socialist era what happened in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries due to the decline of the Ottoman land tenure system, under identical conditions involving fundamental sociopolitical transformations and integration with global capitalism. During these historical phases, the processes of enclosure developed in varying degrees in accord with the topographical and societal conditions of the societies as well as geographical proximity to the European capitalist centres. Today, despite growing connections with the European Union, the whole region has remained on the periphery of the capitalist Western European core, which is specialized in technology and knowledge, while retaining the position as agrarian societies and neat providers of raw materials and food to industrialized Western centres. This chapter suggests that although the regime types governing those nations change throughout historical phases, primitive accumulation practices that harm the small peasantry have been sustained so far under different banners. Land grab in those countries also invokes a public passivity, which symptomizes the prevalence of a historic bloc—as coined by Gramsci—regarding the unquestionability of the liberalization on the land system and intra-EU market dynamics and consequently the current practices of enclosure that turns land into a fictive financial asset favouring beneficiaries other than the local peasantry.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"288 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114384240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.34
Minqi Li
Historically, East Asia accounted for about two-fifths of the world population and economic output. It was incorporated into the capitalist world-system in the mid-nineteenth century. As the East Asian countries responded to the challenges imposed by the British-led Western capitalism, their economic and geopolitical fortunes diverged. While China, Korea, and Taiwan were peripheralized, Japan became a member of the imperialist club by the early twentieth century. After World War II the US-led geopolitical restructuring created favourable political conditions for economic take-off in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and eventually China. As China becomes the world’s largest economy measured by purchasing power parity and makes investments throughout the world, a growing number of scholars now call China a new imperialist power. This chapter evaluates the value flows (represented by labour time embodied in export commodities) between China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of the world. It is expected that the results should show that China continues to transfer more surplus value to the rest of the world than it receives from the rest of the world. China would be best characterized as a non-imperialist semi-peripheral country. As China’s demand for energy commodities and raw materials grows, it intensifies global ecological and geopolitical contradictions. These contradictions are unlikely to produce a world war fought between China and the United States. But it does contribute to the acceleration of global environmental crisis and sets limits to China’s long-term economic growth.
{"title":"The Capitalist World System and Economic Imperialism in East Asia","authors":"Minqi Li","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.34","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, East Asia accounted for about two-fifths of the world population and economic output. It was incorporated into the capitalist world-system in the mid-nineteenth century. As the East Asian countries responded to the challenges imposed by the British-led Western capitalism, their economic and geopolitical fortunes diverged. While China, Korea, and Taiwan were peripheralized, Japan became a member of the imperialist club by the early twentieth century. After World War II the US-led geopolitical restructuring created favourable political conditions for economic take-off in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and eventually China. As China becomes the world’s largest economy measured by purchasing power parity and makes investments throughout the world, a growing number of scholars now call China a new imperialist power. This chapter evaluates the value flows (represented by labour time embodied in export commodities) between China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of the world. It is expected that the results should show that China continues to transfer more surplus value to the rest of the world than it receives from the rest of the world. China would be best characterized as a non-imperialist semi-peripheral country. As China’s demand for energy commodities and raw materials grows, it intensifies global ecological and geopolitical contradictions. These contradictions are unlikely to produce a world war fought between China and the United States. But it does contribute to the acceleration of global environmental crisis and sets limits to China’s long-term economic growth.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"324 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121682888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.19
A. Elveren
High levels of military expenditures are one key aspect of militarism, which is the set of material and ideological manifestations that promote militaristic values in the political, social, and economic domains. This chapter examines the determinants and economic costs of military expenditures with respect to different schools of economic thoughts, including neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist. There has been a growing literature on the role of military spending in capitalism in general and its impact on economic growth in particular. As Rosa Luxemburg noted, military power and the ideological influence of militarism were key mechanisms of primitive accumulation in the history of capitalism. That is, capitalism needs non-capitalist systems to expand, and military power makes it possible. Therefore, one key strategic motive of high military spending by core capitalist nations is to sustain the hegemony over peripheral countries and to regulate the rivalry between them. Resting upon this background, the chapter emphasizes three issues about the role of militarism: First, its role in capitalist accumulation and absorption of surplus with special attention to Luxemburg, and Baran and Sweezy; second, the use of militarism to the imperialist interests; and finally, its impact on employment and economic growth.
{"title":"The Political Economy of Militarism","authors":"A. Elveren","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.19","url":null,"abstract":"High levels of military expenditures are one key aspect of militarism, which is the set of material and ideological manifestations that promote militaristic values in the political, social, and economic domains. This chapter examines the determinants and economic costs of military expenditures with respect to different schools of economic thoughts, including neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist. There has been a growing literature on the role of military spending in capitalism in general and its impact on economic growth in particular. As Rosa Luxemburg noted, military power and the ideological influence of militarism were key mechanisms of primitive accumulation in the history of capitalism. That is, capitalism needs non-capitalist systems to expand, and military power makes it possible. Therefore, one key strategic motive of high military spending by core capitalist nations is to sustain the hegemony over peripheral countries and to regulate the rivalry between them. Resting upon this background, the chapter emphasizes three issues about the role of militarism: First, its role in capitalist accumulation and absorption of surplus with special attention to Luxemburg, and Baran and Sweezy; second, the use of militarism to the imperialist interests; and finally, its impact on employment and economic growth.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128513443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.9
Raúl Delgado Wise
In the international political economy, monopoly capital has become, more than ever, the central player. Through mega-mergers and strategic alliances, this fraction of capital has reached unparalleled levels of concentration and centralization. This trend, associated with the operations of Marx’s absolute general law of capital accumulation, has led to an increasing monopolization of finance, production, services, and trade, leaving every major global industry to be dominated by a handful of large multinational corporations. In the expansion of their activities, the agents of corporate, or monopoly, capitalism have created a global network and process of production, finance, distribution, and investment that has allowed them to seize the strategic and profitable segments of peripheral economies and appropriate the economic surplus produced at enormous social and environmental costs. The main aim of this chapter is to analyse the new modalities of unequal exchange engendered by the implementation of structural adjustment programmes in the Global South. These programmes have been the vehicle for disarticulating the economic apparatus in the periphery and its re-articulation to serve the needs of core capitalist economies, under sharply asymmetric and subordinated conditions. This has led to the emergence of a new international division of labour centred in the direct and indirect exportation of workforce which, in turn, has triggered new and extreme modalities of unequal exchange.
{"title":"Imperialism, Unequal Exchange, and Labour Export","authors":"Raúl Delgado Wise","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.9","url":null,"abstract":"In the international political economy, monopoly capital has become, more than ever, the central player. Through mega-mergers and strategic alliances, this fraction of capital has reached unparalleled levels of concentration and centralization. This trend, associated with the operations of Marx’s absolute general law of capital accumulation, has led to an increasing monopolization of finance, production, services, and trade, leaving every major global industry to be dominated by a handful of large multinational corporations. In the expansion of their activities, the agents of corporate, or monopoly, capitalism have created a global network and process of production, finance, distribution, and investment that has allowed them to seize the strategic and profitable segments of peripheral economies and appropriate the economic surplus produced at enormous social and environmental costs. The main aim of this chapter is to analyse the new modalities of unequal exchange engendered by the implementation of structural adjustment programmes in the Global South. These programmes have been the vehicle for disarticulating the economic apparatus in the periphery and its re-articulation to serve the needs of core capitalist economies, under sharply asymmetric and subordinated conditions. This has led to the emergence of a new international division of labour centred in the direct and indirect exportation of workforce which, in turn, has triggered new and extreme modalities of unequal exchange.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130429270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.35
Marta Gentilucci
This chapter explores how Pacific islanders have the desire to be present and acknowledged within the global system. The first part provides an overview of colonial imperialism in the region. Decades of colonial and economic imperialism have capitalized the natural and human resources influencing the course of social change in the region. In all the colonies of the Pacific, plantations and mines have had a strong impact on the islands including the expropriation of lands, the arrival of foreign workers, and in general all the long-term ecological consequences. The second part of the chapter focusses on the ways conflict over markets, trade routes, the supply of labour, and control over strategic commodities might be progressively halted. Looking at the contextual particularities of economic imperialism in the Pacific Islands allow us to analyse the various forms through which the global economic system is articulated in a specific local context, focusing on the different ways in which social actors resist, transform, and domesticate the hegemonic elements coming from outside. Capitalism, in particular mining activity, is not necessarily perceived by indigenous peoples as an antagonistic by definition, as often emerges in mainstream Western environmental discourse. For some communities it is a means to achieve economic, social, and cultural goals. Analysing mining activity from the lens of indigenous eco-cosmologies, the goal is to identify an alternative space to the rigid dichotomy between subjection and resistance.
{"title":"Pacific Islands","authors":"Marta Gentilucci","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.35","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores how Pacific islanders have the desire to be present and acknowledged within the global system. The first part provides an overview of colonial imperialism in the region. Decades of colonial and economic imperialism have capitalized the natural and human resources influencing the course of social change in the region. In all the colonies of the Pacific, plantations and mines have had a strong impact on the islands including the expropriation of lands, the arrival of foreign workers, and in general all the long-term ecological consequences. The second part of the chapter focusses on the ways conflict over markets, trade routes, the supply of labour, and control over strategic commodities might be progressively halted. Looking at the contextual particularities of economic imperialism in the Pacific Islands allow us to analyse the various forms through which the global economic system is articulated in a specific local context, focusing on the different ways in which social actors resist, transform, and domesticate the hegemonic elements coming from outside. Capitalism, in particular mining activity, is not necessarily perceived by indigenous peoples as an antagonistic by definition, as often emerges in mainstream Western environmental discourse. For some communities it is a means to achieve economic, social, and cultural goals. Analysing mining activity from the lens of indigenous eco-cosmologies, the goal is to identify an alternative space to the rigid dichotomy between subjection and resistance.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130688986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.11
T. Carroll
This chapter details the mutually reinforcing relationship between globalization, neoliberalism, and late capitalism. The chapter emphasizes the dialectical and politically determined evolution of all three, explaining how intensifying patterns of competition have resulted in diminishing the power of progressive social forces and increasing the leverage of competitive fractions of capital and powerful capitalist states. Neoliberalism—often conveniently dismissed by liberals and conservatives alike as a nebulous concept—is explicitly defined as the application of market and market-like discipline to the reorganization of state and society. Forged out of a set ideas and reductionist assumptions emanating from orthodox economics, in its applied form neoliberalism comprises the evolving policy sets demanded by the most powerful (‘competitive’) fractions of capital and the states that represent their interests. In a structural sense, real-existing neoliberalism serves as the institutional ‘software’ of globalization, combining with the integrative techno-logistical infrastructure that makes the ongoing reorganization of production—‘globalization’—possible. Four decades of neoliberal reform and resultant globalization have produced what is often referred to as ‘late capitalism’. Late capitalism is characterized by hypercompetition between and within states, the heightened power of finance capital and grand contradiction—the latter including gross inequality and deprivation amid plenty, deindustrialization and the ‘death of development’, and systemic environmental decline. While resistance to neoliberalism is evident in many (sometimes reactionary) forms, the all-enveloping nature of late capitalism and the ongoing reinvention of neoliberalism as the ‘only’ solution to contradiction make the political task of reimagining and realizing alternative social orders formidable.
{"title":"Neoliberalism, Globalization, and Late Capitalism","authors":"T. Carroll","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.11","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter details the mutually reinforcing relationship between globalization, neoliberalism, and late capitalism. The chapter emphasizes the dialectical and politically determined evolution of all three, explaining how intensifying patterns of competition have resulted in diminishing the power of progressive social forces and increasing the leverage of competitive fractions of capital and powerful capitalist states. Neoliberalism—often conveniently dismissed by liberals and conservatives alike as a nebulous concept—is explicitly defined as the application of market and market-like discipline to the reorganization of state and society. Forged out of a set ideas and reductionist assumptions emanating from orthodox economics, in its applied form neoliberalism comprises the evolving policy sets demanded by the most powerful (‘competitive’) fractions of capital and the states that represent their interests. In a structural sense, real-existing neoliberalism serves as the institutional ‘software’ of globalization, combining with the integrative techno-logistical infrastructure that makes the ongoing reorganization of production—‘globalization’—possible. Four decades of neoliberal reform and resultant globalization have produced what is often referred to as ‘late capitalism’. Late capitalism is characterized by hypercompetition between and within states, the heightened power of finance capital and grand contradiction—the latter including gross inequality and deprivation amid plenty, deindustrialization and the ‘death of development’, and systemic environmental decline. While resistance to neoliberalism is evident in many (sometimes reactionary) forms, the all-enveloping nature of late capitalism and the ongoing reinvention of neoliberalism as the ‘only’ solution to contradiction make the political task of reimagining and realizing alternative social orders formidable.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132940750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.20
A. Banerjee
The neo-liberal processes of globalization of capital and financialization of economies have had profound implications on agrarian labour and petty producers, particularly in the global South. Analysed through the lens of interconnected historical developments in the North and the South, neoliberalism can be comprehended as a set of continuities and discontinuities between the old imperial order and the new structures of imperialism. Why neoliberal policies with elaborate promises of reducing rural poverty do not benefit the agrarian population in a generalized manner needs to be understood in the inherited agrarian class structures in the South from the colonial and postcolonial national development experiences. The emergence of transnational corporations (TNCs) in agriculture as the hegemonic force under neoliberalism has an impact for the agrarian sector in multiple ways. Land grabs as part of international and national land deals/acquisition can potentially alter the value relations drastically with severe implications for the rural poor. This chapter surveys the impact of neoliberalism on the agrarian communities, particularly labour and petty producers. It also looks at the economic and political resistance that have emerged or failed to do so in various contexts as a response to the hegemonic neoliberal order and identifies possible alternatives as agrarian policy that can retain greater value within the agrarian domain, thereby enhancing both well-being and productive investments in peasant farms.
{"title":"Locating Agrarian Labour within the Contours of Imperialism","authors":"A. Banerjee","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.20","url":null,"abstract":"The neo-liberal processes of globalization of capital and financialization of economies have had profound implications on agrarian labour and petty producers, particularly in the global South. Analysed through the lens of interconnected historical developments in the North and the South, neoliberalism can be comprehended as a set of continuities and discontinuities between the old imperial order and the new structures of imperialism. Why neoliberal policies with elaborate promises of reducing rural poverty do not benefit the agrarian population in a generalized manner needs to be understood in the inherited agrarian class structures in the South from the colonial and postcolonial national development experiences. The emergence of transnational corporations (TNCs) in agriculture as the hegemonic force under neoliberalism has an impact for the agrarian sector in multiple ways. Land grabs as part of international and national land deals/acquisition can potentially alter the value relations drastically with severe implications for the rural poor. This chapter surveys the impact of neoliberalism on the agrarian communities, particularly labour and petty producers. It also looks at the economic and political resistance that have emerged or failed to do so in various contexts as a response to the hegemonic neoliberal order and identifies possible alternatives as agrarian policy that can retain greater value within the agrarian domain, thereby enhancing both well-being and productive investments in peasant farms.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134336872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.2
Murray Noonan
The classical Marxist theories of imperialism continue to have explanatory power despite the transformations that have occurred in global capitalism and international politics since the early decades of the twentieth century. Marxist thinkers and activists such as Rudolf Hilferding, Nikolai Bukharin, Vladimir Lenin, and Rosa Luxemburg were instrumental not only in identifying changes in capitalism that occurred after Marx’s death in 1883 but also in linking those changes with contemporary geopolitical conditions that, taken together, ultimately led to the imperialist carnage of World War I. For these Marxists, imperialism was specific and systemic; it was capitalism that had reached its moribund stage where monopolies and finance capital were dominant. Imperialism was capitalist imperialism. It still is; but the classical Marxist theories of imperialism have their contradictions, oversights, and blind spots too, as well as being products of their particular era. On the other hand, there is much that is still relevant, that still resonates in the theorizing of imperialism by the classical Marxists. This chapter undertakes a critical examination of the work of the classical Marxist theorists of imperialism in order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their analyses of capitalist imperialism and the relevance their work has for understanding present-day imperialism.
{"title":"Classical Marxist Imperialism Theory","authors":"Murray Noonan","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197527085.013.2","url":null,"abstract":"The classical Marxist theories of imperialism continue to have explanatory power despite the transformations that have occurred in global capitalism and international politics since the early decades of the twentieth century. Marxist thinkers and activists such as Rudolf Hilferding, Nikolai Bukharin, Vladimir Lenin, and Rosa Luxemburg were instrumental not only in identifying changes in capitalism that occurred after Marx’s death in 1883 but also in linking those changes with contemporary geopolitical conditions that, taken together, ultimately led to the imperialist carnage of World War I. For these Marxists, imperialism was specific and systemic; it was capitalism that had reached its moribund stage where monopolies and finance capital were dominant. Imperialism was capitalist imperialism. It still is; but the classical Marxist theories of imperialism have their contradictions, oversights, and blind spots too, as well as being products of their particular era. On the other hand, there is much that is still relevant, that still resonates in the theorizing of imperialism by the classical Marxists. This chapter undertakes a critical examination of the work of the classical Marxist theorists of imperialism in order to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their analyses of capitalist imperialism and the relevance their work has for understanding present-day imperialism.","PeriodicalId":410474,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Economic Imperialism","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129001384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：