goes on to demonstrate that Mandel’s (and Lenin’s) notion of imperialism as a necessary conduit for the flow of surplus capital from industrialising Europe does not stand up to the historical evidence. In fact, O’Brien maintains an alternative thesis, namely that these marginalised regions were
Societies Without Borders 2 (2007) 5–26 www.brill.nl/swb S W B Beyond the Theory of Imperialism: Global Capitalism and the Transnational State William I. Robinson University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA Received 24 May 2006; accepted 17 June 2006 Abstract Theories of a “new
Wood’s study of the new imperialism represents the latest instance of her broader project of reconstituting a non-deterministic form of Marxism which is able both to explain the historical speciﬁcity of capitalism and to inform socialist political activity. Th is essay seeks to locate her analysis of
her book, Empire of Capital , by laying out her views on the speciﬁcity of capitalism and capitalist imperialism, the relation between global capital and territorial states, the problematic concepts of ‘globalisation’ and ‘ﬁnancialisation’, and how our understanding of capitalism aﬀects our
The theory of imperialism is usually associated with some of the ‘big names’ in the history of European Marxism, such as Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf Hilferding and Nikolai Bukharin, alongside whom the English Progressive John Hobson is usually mentioned. However, little is known about the development of Marxist theory on this subject besides the books of these figures. This volume assembles for the first time the main documents of the international debate on imperialism that took place in the Second International during the period 1898–1916. It assesses the contributions of the individual participants to the developing theory of imperialism, placing them in the context of contemporary political debates.
opposite positions over a series of political questions, most notably the agrarian question and the national question. Th e article defends the nationalist Left and oﬀ ers a critique of the ‘internationalist’ Left through a discussion of contemporary imperialism, the neocolonial state, and civil society
Rome engaged in military and diplomatic expansionistic state behavior, which we now describe as ‘imperialism,’ since well before the appearance of ancient sources describing this activity. Over the course of at least 800 years, the Romans established and maintained a Mediterranean-wide empire from Spain to Syria (and sometimes farther east) and from the North Sea to North Africa. How and why they did this is a perennial source of scholarly controversy. Earlier debates over whether Rome was an aggressive or defensive imperial state have progressed to theoretically-informed discussions of the extent to which system-level or discursive pressures shaped the Roman Empire. Roman imperialism studies now encompass such ancillary subfields as Roman frontier studies and Romanization.
and US intervention, expressed in the confusing notion of a ‘new imperialism’. Th e overarching problems in Wood’s study – and, by extension, in much of the ‘new-imperialism’ literature – is a reiﬁed notion of imperialism, a refusal to draw out the analytical, theoretical, methodological, and