Towards an open Marxist theory of imperialism

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to provide the basis for a theory of imperialism that is consonant with open Marxism. The paper argues that accounts of imperialism heretofore have been contingent and focused on the appearance of imperialism, and spent little time considering its essence as a manifestation of the state’s power and desire to maintain the circuit of capital both nationally and internationally. The paper seeks to show that open Marxism is well placed to achieve this, and to move towards an idea of an open Marxist theory of imperialism.

สังคมใหญ่ เศรษฐกิจเสรี และรัฐที่เข้มแข็ง: โบเนเฟลด์กับการวิพากษ์เสรีนิยมแบบออร์โด

“…Existing works in the field of contemporary Marxism and radical social thought that have employed OM as their theoretical perspective can be found in various ways. For instance, Sutton (2013) develops his OM approach in order to cope with the hidden essence of state power in relation to the theory of imperialism. Likewise, focusing on the state, Tsolakis (2010) argues that the state, for OM, is seen as a contradictory organization of subjection, a necessary constituent of underlying production relations (Tsolakis 2010, 402).…”

Dr Brasilia and Mr. Nacala: the apparent duality behind the Brazilian state-capital nexus

“…Finally, we should not commit the 'nationalist' mistake to identify capital with a nation: the mobility of capital, the possibility to acquire shares on the public market, and the unprecedented amount of FDIs received by Brazil in the last years, suggest that it would be mistaken to talk about Brazilian capital, but it would be more correct to talk about global capital and the different States that are actively involved in its reproduction. As discussed by Sutton (2013) and Callinicos (2009) each state exercises its authority in favor of capital, because it has lost the possibility to chose or differentiate among what is national and what is not.…”

Revisiting the debate on open Marxist perspectives

“… 5. Soderberg and Netzen (2010: 106) also make a criticism, following this same point, that OMs are antagonistic towards ‘empirically oriented sociology’. This seems like a problematic claim given the works of Bonefeld (1993), Bonefeld et al (1995), Burnham (1990, 2001b, 2003, 2006), Kettell (2004), Rogers (2009a, 2009b, 2010), Sutton (2013, 2015). …”