This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
“Super Imperialism,” for Screpanti, denotes a world in which one country exerts supreme control over the international economy. This theory does not apply because US capital today does not directly control all capital (51–53). Screpanti asserts that Arrighi, Harvey, and Callinicos’ work is unsatisfactory because they treat political and economic imperialism as autonomous from each other (53–55). Kautsky’s theory of “ultra-imperialism,” according to Screpanti, predicts a one-world government and does not apply today (56). Screpanti claims Lenin saw merit in Kautsky’s idea. In Imperialism, however, Lenin (1916) derides Kautsky’s theory as “utterly meaningless,” dangerously diverting attention from imperialist contradictions. For his part, Kautsky (1914), in his article “Ultra-Imperialism,” does not explicitly predict a one-world government but suggests the possibility of “a federation of the strongest” imperialist powers free from military antagonism Brewer (1990).
Chibber (2003) has pointed out how, in an earlier period, in South Korea the state played a decisive role in providing an edge to companies precisely by exposing them strategically to international competition. In addition, his historical analysis of India in the twentieth century suggests that only some sectors of capital may have an interest in international markets while others may seek shelter from global markets and may thus hinder development. He also provides support for the possibility that strong labor and socialist movements may be able to open up labor-led state development and growth strategies.
In one tantalizing section, Screpanti describes a “strict alliance” between Germany’s “national bourgeoisie” and its “ruling class” (161). In this case, “all German governments, both left and right wing, even those more committed to neoliberalism, have worked to bend the needs of European citizens to the interests of German national capital. In this system, the imperial state defends domestic industry as such, and not as a part of multinational capital. Furthermore, it encourages collaboration between trade unions and capital, especially through the practice of Mitbestimmung (codetermination, by which union representatives have some voice in the firms’ boards of directors). This is how German governments perform the function of collective national capitalist. Finally, it tries to project itself into the international arena as a global central banker in competition with the United States” (163). Ultimately, of course, Screpanti asserts that the German state was disciplined through crises to bring policy back into line with the global interests of MNCs. But a deeper case study would help outline the class forces at play—sectors of multinational capital, “national capital” of differing size and sections, small capital, labor, etc. Botwinick’s (1993) account of how “regulating capitals” (the most efficient firms) tend to set the contours for competition may be useful in explaining why some firms’ behaviors influence state managers’ decisions more than others.
Screpanti echoes structuralist theories of the state when he describes how capital exerts “indirect control” simply because “governments seek to reduce labor costs by keeping wages low, reducing workers’ rights, and weakening trade union organizations. If they do not do this, foreign investment will not arrive and national investment will take flight” (117). Elsewhere, he refers to Lenin’s observations of the interlocking relationships between state and corporate power, which are studied in contemporary instrumentalist studies in the field of state theory. For an overview of state theory, see Barrow (1993).
References
Barrow, Clyde. 1993. Critical Theories of the State. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Botwinick, Howard. 1993. Persistent Inequalities: Wage Disparity Under Capitalist Competition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brewer, Anthony. 1990. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey. London: Routledge, Keegan, and Paul.
Chibber, Vivek. 2003. Locked in Place: State-Building and Late Industrialization in India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kautsky, Karl. “Ultra-Imperialism.” September 1914. www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1914/09/ultra-imp.htm.
Lenin, Vladimir. “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline.” January-June 1916. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Antush, J.C. Are multinationals striving for a sovereignless utopia? Where does that leave us?. Dialect Anthropol 39, 239–243 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-015-9375-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-015-9375-4