Jun 25, 2019 in Exploratory

International Relations

Introduction

Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin in their book The Making of Global Capitalism: the Political Economy of American Empire talked about globalization and the US Empire (Gindin and Panitch, 2012). It indicated how America has driven globalization and revealed the effect of neo-radicalism on the state. The authors gave a point by point history of the US and its exertion to grasp free enterprise worldwide. The US battled with real super powers to get the prevailing position in the world of private enterprise. They contended that the monetary vulnerability of other states prompted the spread of industrial markets, qualities, and social connections around the globe. The US has driven different states into making and actualizing financial arrangements to advance free enterprise around the world. The monetary emergency of 1970 cut down numerous states, yet America utilized techniques to manage this problem. The US was responsible for overseeing and supervising private enterprise around the world. It was the US free enterprise and its abilities that made globalization possible (Gindin and Panitch, 2012). Panitch and Sam Gindin's significant contention is that the US has been guarding the intrigues of its lower class and the world's working classes since the Second World War. They have upheld their arguments, utilizing solid examples and sources. 

Discussion

Panitch and Gindin demonstrate the relationship between modern capitalism and the US. It includes its role as an informal empire as private owners have been allowed to control the state’s trade and industry for profits and capital accumulation. The authors also conclude that the social conflicts within states can be explained by the analysis of the economic crisis (Panitch and Gindin, 2015). It led to the formation of new political movements that have transformed states and gone beyond global markets. Their main argument is that the US has not constructed a global empire by overcoming the economic crisis of 1970.

Panitch and Gindin believe that the presentation of unhindered commerce is the thing that made American realm achievable. They guarantee that the American quality boosted free enterprise worldwide. They show the methods with which the US set the terms of global exchange and its ventures with sovereign states (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). The country gained power for the expansion and spread of free enterprise. The joining of American capital by sovereign yet less effective states has set the US in the driver's seat of the business realm. It was through this realm that every single entrepreneurial force was incorporated into a powerful framework under the US's assurance. 

Their contention is that the United States rose as the prevailing colonialist power from the Second World War, and its impact prompted the spread of private enterprise worldwide. The casual American realm was refined through the great procedure of monetary arrangements, military mediations, and international governmental issues. Another argument presented by Panitch and Gindin was the way the 1970s' emergency was determined. These strategies were deployed as barriers to the entry of a rival alliance that could challenge America’s global dominance (Gindin and Panitch, 2012). The former super powers were threatening the economic stability of the US with the aim of dominating global capitalism.

 

They also stated that some states detached themselves from capitalist underdevelopment due to the denial of entry to countries practicing free trade (Panitch and Gindin, 2015). Many states started exporting materials, and it changed the view on global capitalism. Capitalism no longer concentrated on the supplies of raw materials, especially to the advanced states. Global capitalism involved an integration of social relations in different states. Social relations led to the rise of a new class of economy, which linked top capital accumulation, yielded a new class of economy, and expanded the lower class. The Capitals' understanding influenced the hobbies and limits of every national business to a great extent (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). The new status was a sort of steady constrain that increased difficulties with the casual American domain, prompting its decay. 

The American Empire used imperialism to control territories and gain power over other states through colonization and military force. Imperialism led to the acquisition of economic power, which made free markets possible. The authors’ argument is based on the informality of the empire. In a formal empire the economic and political control are joined, while in an informal empire these entities are separate. It meant that the US as an informal empire was based on the project of removing competitors from global capitalism through the provision of free trade and the elimination of government powers (Panitch and Gindin, 2015). Neo-liberalism was a result of this informal empire, and it advocated for economic liberalization in the US. 

The decline of the American empire was facilitated by the trade deficit that threatened the dominance of the dollar. On the one hand, new and powerful capitalist powers began to rise, reducing America’s influence on global capitalism. On the other hand, Panitch and Gindin think that the US’s absence of exchange could not be utilized to quantify its profitable force. The ascent of China additionally raised a few contentions. The authors conclude that China would supplant the US as the world's monetary superpower and that its economy would surpass that of the US. Be that as it may, China may not be able to deal with the emergency or the worldwide industrialism, abandoning it all to the American realm with the weight of capital gathering. China has a preference for the US with its extensive variety of enhanced innovations (Gindin and Panitch, 2012). Due to this, America considers China to be a potential adversary; accordingly, it has built up an approach. This arrangement endeavors to draw China into its organized commerce realm, keeping it from exchanging with other states. 

Strengths and Weaknesses

I concur with Panitch and Gindin’s conclusions and knowledge in worldwide private enterprise and the American Empire. They provide two solutions to already formulated theories of globalization, capitalism, and imperialism in today’s world. They indicated that it was due to globalization that states were able to manage the economic crisis. The states did this by regulating the accumulation of capital. The US played the role of an administrator of global capitalism in this process (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). Washington did this through the free trade policy that helped it acquire authority for the implementation of capitalism globally.

Considering this perception, they supported their contentions concerning the examination of the chronicled improvement of the US. They suggested that neo-liberalism and state capitalism had to occur simultaneously. Neo-liberalism exists when the state supports free trade, and there is minimal government intervention in capital accumulation. State capitalism is vital for building social capitalist relations that are important to the political-economic agendas of the state. 

They also make some important claims relevant to the future, which should be incorporated into the Marxist analysis. Panitch and Gindin believe that it is possible to achieve an economy not driven by the capitalist notion after the Second World War (Panitch and Gindin, 2015). Most developing states are engaging in economic nationalism that is threatened by the absence of the state’s middle class that can collaborate. This situation has driven them into swinging work developments that are supposed to tackle the strengths of the capital. 

The authors’ contentions are best illustrated by the chronicled advancement of the US. They precisely broke down the US private enterprise, state limit, and political inclusion and their commitment to promoting worldwide free enterprise was strong enough. The researchers regularly investigated worldwide free enterprise and attempted to discover the US’s impact on today's economy around the world.

Although this theory demonstrates superior strengths, it is also has some weaknesses. First, there is no clear definition of global capitalism in Panitch and Gindins’ book. It makes it difficult to understand the arguments that mostly revolve around that discussion if the reader does not understand notion of global capitalism. The authors should have provided the definition of global capitalism according to their understanding from the beginning. Panitch and Gindin dismiss the debates on whether capital exists nationally or globally. In their opinion, global capitalism is not defined by the existence of global capital. It negates the definition that globalization is the interpenetration of national capitals (Panitch and Gindin, 2015). Their work does not look for adjusting the nature of the relationship between the capital, the state, and the hypotheses encompassing them. 

The researchers do not recognize the subjectively diverse character of worldwide free enterprise. Rather than clarifying the adjustment in the states’ limits and the hindrances to the new political-monetary organization, they claim that the state has no issues. There is an assertion in the book The Making of Global Capitalism that the enforcement of national limits does not require much consideration (Panitch, Gindin and Parisot, 2013). It shows the authors’ obliviousness since they neglect to take note of the significance of worldwide free enterprise for changing spatial limits that have been altered in the states framework.

Another downside of this theory is the fact that Panitch and Gindin examined global capitalism from the perspective of one state (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). It meant that some global relations were not discussed in other states. They should have conducted further analysis of the global flows of surplus value and defects in other states, especially the Middle East and Africa. The third world and developing states would have provided details about capitalism in these areas.

Panitch and Gindin never specify what makes the capital a national capital. Their arguments are centered on the American Empire, which is supposed to be supreme among national capitals and super powers, making it an informal empire. Their main concern is about the global financial market, which they view as an evidence of the American Empire. By an empire, they mean that the US has detached itself from traditional methods of international relations and acquired the most powerful institutions in the global system.

Their arguments also fail to explain how capital is organized in different states. There is very little class analysis with regard to the argument that defines capital as national or trans-national. The lack of significant analysis results in the lack of meaning of American capitalism, European capitalism, and Japanese capitalism. In the writers’ opinion, the world is a combination of national capitals joined in an external conspiracy (Panitch, Gindin and Parisot, 2013). They describe it as internationalization and not trans-nationalization, meaning it does not just exist between states but across the globe. The researchers support their argument by using the separation that they organized and the production system, which is correctly shown as trans- nationalizing. Capitalists are analyzed to indicate how the production process is organized. 

Lastly, most of Panitch and Gindin’s arguments are structured to show how the post Second World War made the US assume the role of defending and implementing increasingly internationalized capitalism. The book does not specify the duration of these developments from the 1980s onwards. In my opinion, this is the period that represents globalization, the period that saw the evolution of world capitalism. At this time, global capitalism was characterized by the rise of a globally integrated production, together with the financial system (Panitch, Gindin and Parisot, 2013). These developments of world capitalism were observed in the earlier part of the twentieth century. The states allowed entry into their territory for free trade and economic support.

Conclusion

Panitch and Gindin's book remain a critical study for those who wish to start deliberation and archive the recorded snippet of worldwide private enterprise. They endeavor to clarify the activities and practices of the US in the process of setting free enterprise, neo-radicalism, and dominion. Despite the fact that they have holes and impediments in their contentions, they are one of the best Marxist break downs. Unlike different researchers, they have given responses to the inquiry whether the character of private enterprise today permits to change the existing political and financial structures in general or they are too different (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). The authors have clarified the authentic setting investigation and of the   government’s hypothesis in the US through free enterprise. Their work is enlightening and useful to other states interested in practicing capitalism.

Although Panitch and Gindin’s theory did not explain some of the rising issues in the 21st century, it brought insight into global capitalism and the economy of the American Empire. It showed how the American state drove globalization and recorded the impact of neo-radicalism on the state. They gave a detailed history of the US and its effort to handle overall free venture. The US combated with super powers to position itself in the overall private undertaking. The writers believed that the money spent on differing states incited the spread of industrialist markets, qualities, and social associations around the world. The American state has driven states into making and completing budgetary courses to progress overall free undertaking (Galbraith, Panitch and Gindin, 2000). The book acted as a foundation for other theories that tried to explain the US imperialism and its capitalist system. It is true that the US played a major role in globalization and the spread of its capitalism.

logotype

Related essays