Jacobin are hosting a “book club”:http://jacobinmag.com/2013/07/jacobin-book-club-the-making-of-global-capitalism/ over the next couple of weeks on Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin’s recent book, The Making of Global Capitalism (“Powells”:http://www.powells.com/partner/29956/biblio/9781844677429). I’m one of the participants – the book is a lot of fun. I expect the discussion will be a lot of fun too.
{ 11 comments }
Sandwichman 07.02.13 at 3:48 am
“Panitch and Gindin will be well-known to Jacobin readers as stalwarts of the Left…”
Please, pleeease… nobody ever ever call me a “stalwart.”
Rakesh Bhandari 07.02.13 at 4:02 am
Woopie! More discussion of whether the US draws any advantage from the role of dollar as a reserve currency such as externalizing the costs of macroeconomic adjustment. Good times ahead…
Henry 07.02.13 at 4:38 pm
It’s not at all controversial that the US draws such an advantage – ‘exorbitant privilege,’ ‘our dollar, your problem’ etc. What was controversial, if you’re referring to what I presume you’re referring to, was the suggestion that this was a form of tribute underpinned by the direct threat of military force against countries which e.g. defected to the euro.
More generally, Panitch and Gindin really know the international political economy literature backwards – the radical and the standard accounts both. There’s plenty to argue with of course, but it’s a really strong book imo (and likely has many strengths that I’m unable to appreciate).
Rakesh Bhandari 07.02.13 at 4:56 pm
Security arrangements that the Gulf states have had with the US have never played any role in the decision not to recycle petrodollars through the IMF but to invest those petrodollars heavily in US government bonds and in Wall Street? I know that David E. Spiro has argued otherwise; he was a student of Robert Gilpin’s.
bob mcmanus 07.02.13 at 6:25 pm
Started the book, almost through the intro, expect to finish by the weekend. I meant to read Arrighi first, and some Wallerstein, but y’all have forced my hand. I expect to find it depressing, because I am no fan of post-democracy.
was the suggestion that this was a form of tribute underpinned by the direct threat of military force against countries which e.g. defected to the euro
Direct threat of military force? No
An example: Bahrain. Bahrain, with the help of SA, was able to handle its internal problems. But the American forces stationed nearby absolutely guaranteed that Iran would not become involved in the repression of the Shiite majority. There is possibly a guarantee that the Shiites would never gain control in Bahrain. Precedent: Kuwait.
Now maybe this isn’t “tribute” perhaps more “protection” but it seems very close to the arrangement the Romans had with the provincials (along with economic incentives), and perhaps much like the Ottomans?
You give us a word.
bob mcmanus 07.02.13 at 6:41 pm
Having said that, and stipulating that the monster US military and ubiquitous basing needs to be explained, I will grant that there are strong economic and political reasons for dollar supremacy.
This week’s events, however, make me skeptical of any theory or residual state sovereignty. However many nations would really like to flip off America and give Snowden asylum, it is now apparent that almost no nation actually can. Whether this is a matter of external pressures or domestic politics, it is de facto subjection and American political domination. It is fascinating.
John Quiggin 07.02.13 at 10:40 pm
“the monster US military and ubiquitous basing needs to be explained”
The explanation is, I think, the same as for EU agricultural policy. The US military-industrial complex is politically powerful, and secures massive state support at the expense of everyone else in the US, including the US capitalist class as a whole, and of those in the Third World who incur the consequences.
LFC 07.03.13 at 12:14 am
@7
Interesting to note in this connection that the border security provisions of the Senate-passed (though not House) immigration bill apparently call for particular kinds of helicopters etc. designed to benefit particular companies/contractors. At least this seemed to be the gist of a WaPo piece that I only read the lead (lede) of.
Henry 07.03.13 at 10:59 am
Rakesh – you realize that is a much weaker and quite different claim than Graeber’s?
Rakesh Bhandari 07.03.13 at 2:32 pm
Well in the sharp exchange over there is tribute paid in the world economy I thought that there was too room for a position such as Spiro’s and a few others’.
Rakesh Bhandari 07.03.13 at 2:42 pm
sorry for haste, have to go to work
Well in the sharp exchange over WHETHER there is tribute paid in the world economy I thought that there was too LITTLE room for a position such as Spiro’s and a few others’.
Well I am almost done with summer school, so I won’t be using CT as a way of breaking up the time spent grading papers. Summer begins this afternoon. Yeah!
Comments on this entry are closed.