Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives
Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour: Contesting Neo-Gramscian Perspectives
复制标题
全球重组、国家、资本和劳动力：新葛兰西观点的争论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Bieler
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Bieler
对于参与全球体系的学者和活动人士来说，近几十年的资本主义--许多人现在称之为全球化--无疑是最大的分析和理论挑战。在国际关系(IR)和国际政治经济学(IPE)的子学科中，关于资本主义改革的一些最具创新性的工作来自两种批判性的马克思主义方法，即新语法主义和开放马克思主义。这两种方法都有历史唯物主义的方法和批判的立场，但在理解当代资本主义的马克思主义和批判范畴的功利性、解释和应用上，它们一直处于紧张状态。这本书汇集了总共12个贡献-来自代表新格拉姆西奇派的安德烈亚斯·比勒和亚当·莫顿，以及来自彼得·伯纳姆和维尔纳·博内费尔德，代表开放马克思主义者-作为两种方法之间关于他们对全球重组过程的各自解释的交流，明确地关注国家、资本和劳动力在这些过程中的中心地位。这本书分为三个部分。首先介绍了关键概念和分类两个视角的分析。新葛兰西学派在上个十年的元老罗伯特·W·考克斯做出了开创性的贡献后，在20世纪90年代凝固了下来。它将葛兰西学派的类别和概念--其中包括霸权、历史集团、被动革命和国家-公民-社会结构--应用于世界秩序和全球结构，并强调了二十世纪末和二十一世纪初世界资本主义的跨国特征。开放马克思主义者大多与新格拉姆西耶学派同时代，他们强调资本关系的中心地位--尤其是其内部矛盾的性质--无限期的阶级斗争，以及资本主义的内在不稳定性和危机性。这两种方法都把社会生产关系放在首位，在本体论上作为资本主义的核心，在方法论上作为分析的起点。对于两者来说，国家和市场是这种相同的社会生产关系的两种不同形式。那么，这两种观点之间的主要争论点是什么？这些差异在本书的第二部分和第三部分发挥了作用，第二部分提供了几个关于当代世界资本主义发展的案例研究，第三部分旨在总结这场辩论。开放的马克思主义者并不认为全球化是世界资本主义的一个质的新纪元，他们拒绝接受新葛兰主义者所说的许多跨国进程。例如，比勒将欧洲一体化从根本上分析为一个涉及资本跨国和跨国阶级斗争的过程。他展示了欧洲占主导地位的群体中的新自由主义、新重商主义和社会民主派如何根据跨国积累过程中的不同位置提出了不同的一体化愿景。这种对跨国资本部分的中央机构的强调突出了
capitalism in recent decades – what many now refer to as globalisation – is surely the paramount analytical and theoretical challenge for scholars and activists who engage with the global system. Some of the most innovative work on capitalist restructuring from within the sub-disciplines of international relations (IR) and international political economy (IPE) has come from two critical Marxist approaches, neo-Gramscianism and Open Marxism. These two approaches share a historical-materialist method and a critical standpoint, yet they have been in tension with one another over the utility, interpretation and application of key Marxist and critical categories in understanding contemporary capitalism. This volume brings together a total of twelve contributions – from Andreas Bieler and Adam Morton, representing the neoGramscians, and from Peter Burnham and Werner Bonefeld, representing the Open Marxists – as an exchange between the two approaches on their respective interpretations of global restructuring processes, with an explicit focus on the centrality of the state, capital and labour to these processes. The book is organised into three sections. The first introduces the key concepts and categories of analysis of the two perspectives. The neo-Gramscian approach congealed in the 1990s following seminal contributions in the previous decade by its doyen, Robert W. Cox. It applies Gramscian categories and concepts – amongst them hegemony, the historical bloc, passive revolution and state–civil-society configurations – to world order and global restructuring, and emphasises the transnational character of late-twentieth and early twenty-first century world capitalism. The Open Marxists, largely contemporaneous with the neo-Gramscians, emphasise the centrality of the capital relation – especially its internally contradictory nature – class struggle as open ended, and the inherent instability and crisisprone nature of capitalism. Both approaches prioritise the social relations of production, ontologically as the core of capitalism and methodologically as the starting point of analysis. And for both, the state and the market are two different forms of these same social relations of production. What, then, are the main points of contention between these two perspectives? The differences are brought into play in the second section of this volume, which provides several case studies on contemporary developments in world capitalism, and in the third section, intended as a summation of the debate. Open Marxists do not see globalisation as a qualitatively new epoch in world capitalism, and they reject much of what the neo-Gramscians refer to as transnational processes. Bieler, for instance, analyses European integration as fundamentally being a process involving transnationalising capital and transnational class struggle. He shows how neoliberal, neo-mercantilist and socialdemocratic fractions among dominant groups in Europe put forth distinct visions of integration based on distinct locations within transnationalising accumulation processes. This emphasis on the central agency of transnational fractions of capital stands in