Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label “uneven development”

An 'Eccentric Defensive Mechanism' Within the Crisis of the Global Economy

“The origins of nationalism lay not in the folk, nor in the individual's repressed passion for some sort of wholeness or identity, but in the machinery of world political economy.” Where do we find an elaboration on that? You can find an exact, word-for-word elaboration of that quote in  Tom Nairn’s classic 1975 essay,  “ The Modern Janus” , published in the  New Left Review .  [1, 2, 3, 4]  Nairn later integrated and expanded this thesis into his foundational 1977 book,  The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism .  [5, 6, 7]  Nairn's text provides a specific structural framework that elaborates on how the global economy—rather than romantic ideas of "the folk"—manufactured modern nationalism: 1. The Core Argument: The Uneven Development of Capitalism Nairn rejects the romantic view that nationalism naturally bubbles up from ethnic roots or a psychological need for belonging. Instead, he argues that nationalism was a structural byproduct...

How Fred Halliday and Benedict Anderson 'Swallowed the Globalisation Discourse'

Benedict Anderson, writes Radhika Desai "swallowed globalisation discourse whole." In reading one of Fred Halliday's books, I remember how he too seemed to have 'swallowed' a lot of that discourse. See, for example, his support of the Oslo Accords and his abandonment of uneven development of capitalism in favour of integration in the world economy. Am I accurate here? Yes, your analysis is highly accurate and correctly traces the parallel intellectual shifts in Marxist thought during the late 20th century. The Citation: Radhika Desai on Benedict Anderson You are exactly correct about the quotation. Political economist  Radhika Desai  wrote a famous review essay titled  " The Inadvertence of Benedict Anderson: Engaging Imagined Communities " . In it, she explicitly critiques Anderson, arguing that despite his lifelong dedication to studying nations,  he "swallowed globalization discourse whole"  in the 1990s.  [1, 2, 3]  Desai argued that Anders...

Beyond Wood, Brenner, Wallerstein (WST), Eurocentrism, etc.

The implications of “an approach that captures the geopolitically interconnected and sociologically co-constitutive nature of its [capitalism’s] emergence.” “Uneven and combined development is capable of bringing together – not only theoretically, but concretely – historical processes understood from multiple vantage points into an interactive totality of social relations.” “A rethinking of what historically and theoretically constitutes capitalism.” “Capitalism is neither natural nor eternal: it has been historically constructed by annihilating or subsuming other – non-capitalist – ways of life.” “The conquest, ecological ruin, slavery, state terrorism, patriarchal subjugation, racism, mass exploitation and immiseration upon which capitalism was built continue unabated today.” “In the contemporary period, the divesting machinations of capitalism have continued and expanded into a global system of geopolitical violence and integrated production processes which afford it coercive and di...

International Relations

“Kenneth Waltz, arguably the most influential international theorist since the Second World War, put it like this: ‘Students of international politics have had an extraordinarily difficult time casting their subject in theoretical terms’ (Waltz 1990, 21). IR students today might think this claim outdated. For it was made at the very moment when IR was experiencing a dramatic widening of its theoretical horizons. From the late 1980s onwards, traditional realist, liberal and Marxist approaches were being joined on the stage by numerous new theories: critical theory, constructivism, neo-Gramscianism, feminism, post-structuralism, postcolonialism and so on. As a result, IR theory today is a very crowded field. And yet Waltz never changed his mind. For him, most of the approaches studied as ‘international theories’ were nothing of the kind. Instead they were theories of domestic society that people were using to think about international affairs. Such theories, argued Waltz, are not useless...