Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:11:41.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relations Among Core Capitalist States: The Kautsky-Lenin Debate Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Steven K. Holloway
Steven K. Holloway
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note reviews several recent developments in the Marxist “theory of the state” controversies with the hope of clarifying what those theories have to say about the international behaviour of core nations. It returns to the Kautsky-Lenin Debate over Ultra-imperialism and attempts to show its relevance to the recent Wallerstein “World Systems Debate.” The theoretical difference between Kautsky and “neo-Kautskyite” writers is demonstrated by introducing a two dimensional analytic construct of relations among core states. The discussion of “relative autonomy” points out a major ambiguity which now exists in the “instrumentalist-structuralist” controversy. The note should be useful to Marxist researchers on the theory of the state, comparativists interested in the autonomy of the modern state, and international relations scholars interested in the World Systems debate.

Résumé

Cette note passe en revue des développements récents dans les controverses autour de la « théorie marxiste de l'Etat » avec l'espoir de clarifier ce que ces théories proposent en regard du comportement international des nations centrales. Cela nous renvoie au débat Kautsky-Lénine sur l'ultra-impérialisme et tente de montrer la pertinence du récent « débat sur le système mondial » de Wallerstein. La différence théorique entre Kautsky et les auteurs « néo-Kautskystes » est expliquée par l'introduction d'un modèle analytique bi-dimensionnel de relations entre Etats centraux. La discussion sur « l'autonomie relative » révèle une ambiguïté majeure existant présentement dans la controverse « instrumentalistes-structuralistes ». Cet essai devrait être utile pour les chercheurs marxistes travaillant sur la théorie de l'Etat et intéressés par une perspective comparative sur l'autonomie de l'Etat moderne, ainsi que pour les spécialistes des relations internationales attirés par le débat sur le système mondial.

Type
Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 321 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hopkins, Terence K., “The Study of the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Introductory Considerations,” in Wallerstein, Immanuel (ed.). Vol. 2 of Political Economy of the World-System Annuals (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979), 22.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 24.

3 I recommend Nordlinger, Eric, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981)Google Scholar and Block, Fred, “Marxist Theories of the State in World System Analysis,” in Wallerstein, Immanuel (ed.), Vol. 1 of Political Economy of the World-System Annuals (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978), 27–38.Google Scholar for an explanation of this distinction. Very briefly, the issue is why does the capitalist state act in the interests of the national, capitalist class? The instrumentalist answer tends to focus on the ways the capitalist or others with capitalist interests dominate the state, occupying key policy posts in government, and intentionally employ the state apparatus in their own class interests. The structuralist answer focusses on deep underlying structural constraints on state behaviour. The structuralist might claim that even a radical or revolutionary party once in power will be forced to act in the interests of the capitalist system if the underlying structure of the world capitalist economy remains unchanged.

4 Krasner, Stephen, Defending the National Interest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

5 Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State.

6 Chase-Dunn, Christopher, “Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?” International Studies Quarterly 25 (1981), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Kautsky, Karl, “Ultra-imperialism,” New Left Review 59 (1970), 416.Google Scholar

8 Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State.

9 Radice, Hugo (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975).Google Scholar

10 Mandel, Ernest, “The Laws of Uneven Development,” New Left Review 59 (1970), 19–38.Google Scholar

11 Block, “Marxist Theories of the State in World System Analysis.”

12 Murray, Robin, “The Internationalization of Capital and the Nation State,” in Radice, (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism, 136.Google Scholar

13 Steenson, Gary, Karl Kautsky 1854–1938: Marxism in Classical Years (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 1978).Google Scholar

14 Salvadori, Massimo, Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution (London: New Left, 1979).Google Scholar

15 Ibid., 188. Emphasis added.

16 Ibid., 196.

17 Ibid., 189.

18 Ibid., 197.

19 Stephen Hymer, “International Politics and International Economics: A Radical Approach” (mimeographed, 1974), 10.

20 Murray, “The Internationalization of Capital and the Nation State.”

21 Warren, Bill, “How International is Capital?” in Radice, (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism, 135-40.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., 136.

23 Ibid., 138.

24 Ibid., 140.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Indeed, Murray appears to be the Marxist equivalent of the Mitrany-functionalist of international relations integration theory.

28 Mandel, Ernest, “International Capitalism and ‘Supemationality,’” in Radice, (ed.), International Firms and Modern Imperialism, 147.Google Scholar

29 Ibid.

30 Though it should be pointed out that Mandel hedges on the issue of whether integration is inevitable for the EEC and would probably not accept the Kautsky label.

31 Krasner, Defending the National Interest.

32 See, for example, the discussion of the New Deal in Gold, David. Lo, Clarence. and Wright, Eric. “Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the Capitalist State,” Monthly Review 27 (1975), 35.Google Scholar

33 Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State.

34 Block, “Marxist Theories of the State in World Systems Analysis.”

35 Nordlinger, , On the Autonomy of the Democratic State, 48. Emphasis added.Google Scholar

36 Holloway, John, “State as Class Practice,” in Zaremba, Paul (ed.), Research in Political Economy, Vol. 3 (Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press, 1980), 5.Google Scholar

37 Used in much the same sense as Christopher Chase-Dunn, when he refers to the “so called ‘economism’ of the Stalinist Third International,” (“Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?”, 20).

38 Holloway, “State as Class Practice,” 4.

39 Schuman, Robert, as quoted in Willis, Roy (ed.), European Integration (New York: New Viewpoints, 1975), 20.Google Scholar

40 Lenin, , “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” in Tucker, Robert. The Lenin Anthology (New York: Norton. 1975), 267.Google Scholar

41 Ulam, Adam, Expansion and Coexistence (New York: Praeger. 1968), 501.Google Scholar

42 Mandel, “International Capitalism and ‘Supernationality’.”

43 Holloway, and Picciotto, , “Capital, the State and European Integration.” in Zaremba, (ed.). Research in Political Economy, Vol. 3, 123-54.Google Scholar

44 Christopher Chase-Dunn refers to the “hegemonism” phase as “unicentric” and defines it as a period in which comparative advantage in production and exchange allows one core country to dominate economically all other core countries as the Netherlands did in the seventeenth century, the United Kingdom did in the nineteenth century, and the United States has done in the twentieth century. The alternative “competitive” phase he calls “multicentric,” implying that no single core country is able to dominate the others. Most World-System writers suggest that since about 1970 we have been moving into such a phase (“Core-Periphery Relations: The Effects of Core Competition,” in Wallerstein, [Bed.], Vol. 1 of Political Economy of the World-System Annuals, 160).Google Scholar

45 Bousquet, Nicole, “From Hegemony to Competition: Cycles of the Core?” in Wallerstein, (ed.), Vol. 3 of Political Economy of the World-System Annuals, 46–83.Google Scholar

46 “The Future of the World-Economy,” in Wallerstein, (ed.), Vol. 3 of The Political Economy of the World-System Annuals, 167-80.Google Scholar

47 Kondratieff cycles.

48 Holloway and Picciotto (“Capital, the State and European Integration”) have some interesting things to say here as does Mandel (“International Capitalism and ‘Supemationality’”), but I have yet to see a fully developed analysis within the context of the World-Systems approach.

49 Hopkins, “The Study of the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Introductory Considerations.”

50 See Sklar, Holly (ed.), Trilateralism (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1980).Google Scholar

51 Hence a “cube” of theories of the state made up of three axes. The introduction of the instrumentalist/structuralist dimension would further separate the Neo-Kautsky “structuralist” position from Kautsky’s more “intentionalist” position.