首页> 外文期刊>Journal of international relations and development >Imperialism or globalisation? ... Or imperialism and globalisation: Theorising the international after Rosenberg's 'post-mortem'
【24h】

Imperialism or globalisation? ... Or imperialism and globalisation: Theorising the international after Rosenberg's 'post-mortem'

机译:帝国主义还是全球化? ……还是帝国主义与全球化:在罗森伯格的“事后调查”之后对国际理论进行理论化

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This article examines the concepts of globalisation and imperialism, both in terms of their explanatory status, and in the light of changes in the international order since the end of the Cold War. It does so both through detailed theoretical and empirical analysis, and in part through focusing on a key contributor to this debate, Justin Rosenberg. It is argued that Rosenberg's theoretical post-mortem for globalisation is correct. However, it is also argued that Rosenberg's historical postmortem is far less convincing, not least when related to his subsequent attempts to draw on the concept of uneven and combined development in order to explain the reality of geopolitical conflict in the international order. It is here that the concept of imperialism enters the picture, and the article suggests that attempts to update theories of geopolitical competition based on Lenin and Bukharin's work on imperialism are unconvincing, as they fail to take full account of the changes in the international order since 1945. These changes - the internationalisation of capital and rise of global production networks, the rise of manufacturing in the developing world, the internationalisation of the state, cooperation between developed capitalist powers, and US hegemony - are well described, if not necessarily explained by the concept of globalisation. However, this does not mean that the concept of imperialism is no longer of use, and the idea is defended through a discussion of the hierarchies associated with the globalisation of production. It is further illustrated by relating liberal military intervention to this continued reality of global hierarchy and inequality in the international order. The article concludes by defending the ideas of imperialism and uneven and combined development, but argues that these cannot be used to explain the nature of the international state system (or geo-politics), but rather the hierarchies associated with the international capitalist order (or political economy).
机译:本文从解释性地位和冷战结束以来国际秩序的变化出发,研究了全球化和帝国主义的概念。它通过详细的理论和经验分析,以及通过部分关注这场辩论的主要贡献者贾斯汀·罗森伯格,来做到这一点。有人认为,罗森伯格对全球化的理论事后检验是正确的。然而,也有人认为,罗森伯格的历史事后论据远没有那么令人信服,尤其是与他随后试图利用不均衡和联合发展的概念来解释国际秩序中地缘政治冲突的现实有关。正是在这里,帝国主义的概念出现了,文章认为,基于列宁和布哈林关于帝国主义的工作来更新地缘政治竞争理论的尝试是没有说服力的,因为他们没有充分考虑到自从那以后国际秩序的变化。 1945年。这些变化-资本国际化和全球生产网络的兴起,发展中国家制造业的兴起,国家的国际化,发达的资本主义强国之间的合作以及美国的霸权,都得到了很好的描述,即使不一定全球化的概念。但是,这并不意味着不再使用帝国主义的概念,而是通过讨论与生产全球化有关的等级制度来捍卫帝国主义的概念。通过将自由军事干预与全球等级制度和国际秩序中的不平等这一持续现实联系起来,进一步说明了这一点。本文以捍卫帝国主义,不均衡和联合发展的思想作为结尾,但认为这些思想不能用来解释国际国家体系(或地缘政治)的性质,而不能用来解释与国际资本主义秩序有关的等级制度(或政治经济)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号