Search

Under George W. Bush, the United States has chosen to revolutionize world affairs by abandoning successful forms of hegemonic governance, based on the institutionalization of collective economic and security regimes, in favor of militarism, or the pursuit of global domination through force. Starting from a critique of structuralist approaches, this paper examines the ideational transformation of the American right and situates it within the context of the US's emergence in 1991 as a unipolar strategic actor and as the core state in the newly globalized capitalist political economy. While these synchronous transformations considerably augmented America's autonomy, giving the US the opportunity to reconfigure the world system to its advantage, one must distinguish between the current imperial expansionism of the revived and expanded US national security state and earlier forms of US hegemonic rule. The aim: to account for a fundamental shift of the way in which the US has governed the capitalist world system since 1945. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussions of capitalism in agriculture as of 1983, suggest that the classical Marxist texts are outmoded. These critics, however, offer little in the way of empirical support for their claims. When data on the development of the U.S. agriculture are examined, they confirm the classical theorists. The development of the U.S. agriculture has been characterized by an increase in scale, in capital investment and in the importance of wage labor. This paper also argues that the development of agriculture in the U.S. confirms V. I. Lenin's early work. But if Lenin's description is comprehensive, his explanations are not. He emphasized the importance of market forces to the exclusion of all else. He did not anticipate the enormous role of the state in orchestrating the advance of the U.S. agricultural capitalism. Indeed, a growing body of literature supports the idea that state intervention propelled the development of capitalism in the U.S. agriculture. This essay updates Lenin's discussion of U.S. agriculture and speculates on the role of the state in its transformation. What is less clear is whether European agriculture diverged from classical expectations. A comparative study of farm structure and state policy might go a long way towards revising and elaborating classical theory.

Since the 1970s, corporate governance in the United States has become increasingly beholden to Wall Street. This trend is so prominent that the resulting formation is increasingly known as money manager capitalism. This article explores some of the reasons behind this change, and its implications for the American economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the development of capitalism in Great Britain and in the U.S. Great pressure is currently being applied on developing countries by the developed world, and the international development policy establishment that it controls, to adopt a set of "good policies" and "good institutions" to foster their economic development. According to this agenda, "good policies" broadly are those that include restrictive macroeconomic policy, liberalization of international trade and investment, privatization, and deregulation. The key institutions include democracy, good bureaucracy, an independent judiciary, strongly protected private property rights and transparent and market-oriented corporate governance and financial institutions. This article has shown how the currently dominant neo-liberal argument for free trade and laissez-faire industrial policy is based on a fundamentally mistaken reading of the history of capitalism. Particularly important in this argument is the very selective and distorted reading of the economic histories of Great Britain and the U.S., whose ascents to industrial supremacy are erroneously attributed to their free trade policy and non-interventionism.

The article discusses the institutional and social aspects of the philosophy of Paul Tillich particularly his criticism of the capitalist economic system in the U.S. Tillich addressed many issues of importance to social economics and his concern with social philosophy and with the ethical basis of economic society both continue to be topics of great concern to social economics. His criticism of capitalism with its resulting injustices and with its destruction of community is of considerable importance. His belief that history can only be discovered by participation in meaningful historical activity and through action can theory be known is significant to the social economist who is concerned with formulating economic policies.