THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and identities(Gill,1991a:296),the exigencies and possibilities of capital accumulation on a global scale are exposed. For open Marxism,elite cybernetics is useful in revealing the essential history made behind the backs of key actors.It also exposes the active making of history.Indeed,in the writings of open Marxism,transna- tional elites not only share a particularly meaningful position in the structures of accumulation,they are also structurally literate.They read structural dynamics,constraints and imperatives,and invent fitting political projects.The assumption of elite literacy takes as its starting point Gramsci's notion of intellectuals as 'an organic category of every fundamental social group'equipped with a special function of cohesion (Gramsci,1971:15).For Stephen Gill,international organizations fulfil the function of organic intellectuals of the world economy:'the TC's [Trilateral Commission]perspective to a large extent reflects the interests and world-view of the more dynamic and internationally mobile forms of capital,as well as the interests of the liberal "internationalist"elements within the state bureaucracies of the major capitalist states'(Gill,1986: 212).Again:'trilateralism can be defined as the project of developing an organic...alliance between the major capitalist states,with the aim of promoting...a stable form of world order which is congenial to their dominant interests'(Gill,1990a:1).Global elites are'vanguard forces'of internationalization (Gill et al.,1992:10).Similarly,for Cox the 'transna- tional managerial class'is not only the contemporary expression of bourgeois conquerants,it also a class 'both in itself and for itself'(Cox, 1985:234). Particularly revealing of the significance given by open Marxism to the structural literacy of elites is the idea of 'comprehensive concepts of control'developed at the University of Amsterdam,an institutional center of transnational historical materialism (Burnham,1991:87).De- fined by Henk Overbeek as ..coherent formulations of the 'general interest'which transcends narrowly defined fractional interests and which combine mutually compatible strategies in the field of labour relations,socio- economic policy and foreign policy on the basis of a class compromise. (Overbeek,1990:26,178) Concepts of controls are hegemonical strategies reflecting an organic sense of direction.In the postwar period,two such transcendent for- mulas have shaped the parameters of accumulation.First,the Keynesian concept of control,articulated in institutions such as the US Council on Foreign Relations,and projected onto western Europe from the American Fordist heartland(Van der Pijl,1989:9-13).Second,after the crisis of the mid-1970s,a neo-liberal concept of control emerged to guide global 109 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and identities (Gill, 1991a: 296), the exigencies and possibilities of capital accumulation on a global scale are exposed. For open Marxism, elite cybernetics is useful in revealing the essential history made behind the backs of key actors. It also exposes the active making of history. Indeed, in the writings of open Marxism, transnational elites not only share a particularly meaningful position in the structures of accumulation, they are also structurally literate. They read structural dynamics, constraints and imperatives, and invent fitting political projects. The assumption of elite literacy takes as its starting point Gramsci's notion of intellectuals as 'an organic category of every fundamental social group' equipped with a special function of cohesion (Gramsci, 1971: 15). For Stephen Gill, international organizations fulfil the function of organic intellectuals of the world economy: 'the TC's [Trilateral Commission] perspective to a large extent reflects the interests and world-view of the more dynamic and internationally mobile forms of capital, as well as the interests of the liberal "internationalist" elements within the state bureaucracies of the major capitalist states' (Gill, 1986: 212). Again: 'trilateralism can be defined as the project of developing an organic . . . alliance between the major capitalist states, with the aim of promoting ... a stable form of world order which is congenial to their dominant interests' (Gill, 1990a: 1). Global elites are 'vanguard forces' of internationalization (Gill et al., 1992: 10). Similarly, for Cox the 'transnational managerial class' is not only the contemporary expression of bourgeois conque6rants, it also a class 'both in itself and for itself' (Cox, 1985: 234). Particularly revealing of the significance given by open Marxism to the structural literacy of elites is the idea of 'comprehensive concepts of control' developed at the University of Amsterdam, an institutional center of transnational historical materialism (Burnham, 1991: 87). Defined by Henk Overbeek as ... coherent formulations of the 'general interest' which transcends narrowly defined fractional interests and which combine mutually compatible strategies in the field of labour relations, socioeconomic policy and foreign policy on the basis of a class compromise. (Overbeek, 1990: 26, 178) Concepts of controls are hegemonical strategies reflecting an organic sense of direction. In the postwar period, two such transcendent formulas have shaped the parameters of accumulation. First, the Keynesian concept of control, articulated in institutions such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, and projected onto western Europe from the American Fordist heartland (Van der Pijl, 1989: 9-13). Second, after the crisis of the mid-1970s, a neo-liberal concept of control emerged to guide global 109 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARTICLES restructuring;a concept of control centered on an idealized notion of the market,'in which progress is defined in terms of the subordination of labor to capital,and the state role is limited to a Lockean night watch'(p. 30).Neo-liberalism was first applied in Pinochet's Chile,and then in the United States,through Volcker's Federal Reserve Bank,and then in the rest of the world (p.30).Both Keynesianism and neo-liberalism con- structed a general interest our of the particular interest of the more innovative and rapidly expanding fractions of capital-money capital in the case of neo-liberalism(p.30).Both reflect a political dynamic centered on structurally cognizant global elites. Much like the crisis of the postwar order brought Braudel's interest in the longue duree('a l'abris des accidents,des conjonctures,des ruptures (1969:72])to the forefront of historical analysis,s the juncture of restruc- turing in the 1980s has increased the relevance of open Marxism's preoccupation with the world economy as a planned and organized process(Gill,1986:215),and of its attempt to discover universal norms shaping civil society on behalf of dominant fractions of capital(Cox, 1983:172).Institutionally oriented modes of analysis have not uncovered any coherence in the ruins of the postwar order,and propose little more than a reinvention of acquired concepts(speaking of post-Fordism,post- Cold War and post-Bretton Woods).Open Marxism,more fluid and more critically preoccupied with power,as it is constituted differently in different historical periods,and therefore better able to move beyond the understanding of class politics as a strictly national phenomenon(Wal- lerstein,1980:61),has been able to rise above the disorder of the moment of restructuring to capture the transnational nature of the contemporary recomposition of political power.When Paul Volcker spoke of 'an excep- tionally clear recognition [that]we are going to have to move to much closer coordination and cooperation'(quoted in Gill,1990a:121),and the BIS noted retrospectively that[in]many countries,explaining monetary policy decisions in terms of external constraints has been helpful in securing public acceptance',(BIS,Annual Report 1992:124),open Marx- ism was well equipped to look beyond the mandatory expression of solidarity at the closing of a G7meeting,and the BIS's self-laudation,and discern in this discourse indications of a real shift in power relationships. Furthermore,the sense of purpose of open Marxism,and its supple, somewhat craftsman-like,approach to historical research has allowed it to garner insights from a wide assortment of sources(published docu- ments of public and private international organizations,political dis- courses,interviews,daily newspapers,specialized journals),and to put a remarkable variety of intellectual traditions(critical sociology,liberal economics,social history)to the task of conceptualizing transnational power.Stephen Gill's claim that'the Gramscian approach can be said to be more comprehensive since it allows for a more consistent theorization 110 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARTICLES restructuring; a concept of control centered on an idealized notion of the market, 'in which progress is defined in terms of the subordination of labor to capital, and the state role is limited to a Lockean night watch' (p. 30). Neo-liberalism was first applied in Pinochet's Chile, and then in the United States, through Volcker's Federal Reserve Bank, and then in the rest of the world (p. 30). Both Keynesianism and neo-liberalism constructed a general interest our of the particular interest of the more innovative and rapidly expanding fractions of capital - money capital in the case of neo-liberalism (p. 30). Both reflect a political dynamic centered on structurally cognizant global elites. Much like the crisis of the postwar order brought Braudel's interest in the longue duree ('a l'abris des accidents, des conjonctures, des ruptures' [1969:72]) to the forefront of historical analysis,6 the juncture of restructuring in the 1980s has increased the relevance of open Marxism's preoccupation with the world economy as a planned and organized process (Gill, 1986: 215), and of its attempt to discover universal norms shaping civil society on behalf of dominant fractions of capital (Cox, 1983: 172). Institutionally oriented modes of analysis have not uncovered any coherence in the ruins of the postwar order, and propose little more than a reinvention of acquired concepts (speaking of post-Fordism, postCold War and post-Bretton Woods). Open Marxism, more fluid and more critically preoccupied with power, as it is constituted differently in different historical periods, and therefore better able to move beyond the understanding of class politics as a strictly national phenomenon (Wallerstein, 1980: 61), has been able to rise above the disorder of the moment of restructuring to capture the transnational nature of the contemporary recomposition of political power. When Paul Volcker spoke of 'an exceptionally clear recognition [that] we are going to have to move to much closer coordination and cooperation' (quoted in Gill, 1990a: 121), and the BIS noted retrospectively that '[in] many countries, explaining monetary policy decisions in terms of external constraints has been helpful in securing public acceptance', (BIS, Annual Report 1992: 124), open Marxism was well equipped to look beyond the mandatory expression of solidarity at the closing of a G7 meeting, and the BIS's self-laudation, and discern in this discourse indications of a real shift in power relationships. Furthermore, the sense of purpose of open Marxism, and its supple, somewhat craftsman-like, approach to historical research has allowed it to garner insights from a wide assortment of sources (published documents of public and private international organizations, political discourses, interviews, daily newspapers, specialized journals), and to put a remarkable variety of intellectual traditions (critical sociology, liberal economics, social history) to the task of conceptualizing transnational power. Stephen Gill's claim that 'the Gramscian approach can be said to be more comprehensive since it allows for a more consistent theorization 110 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and explanation of changes in the contemporary global political econ- omy'(Gill,1990a:230),is accurate in this respect. However,the analytical litheness of open Marxism comes at a certain price,in terms of both the material picture it paints,and the politics it counsels.As a framework for the study of the present moment,the writings of open Marxism base their fluid analysis of the transnational construction of neo-liberalism on a problematic understanding of classes and fractions of classes in the world economy.Moreover,open Marxism's theorization of the articulation between accumulation and politics in the world economy is underdeveloped,and leads to an exaggerated view of the coherence of neo-liberalism.The politics of open Marxism,con- strained by assumptions of an organic unity of global elites,and the political cogency of transnational concepts of control,leaves few pos- sibilities for political organization. Neo-liberalism and transnational capital In open Marxism,political multilateralism is an extrapolation of eco- nomic multilateralism(Cox,1991a:13-14),and restructuring is under- stood as the continuation in the world of political strategy of the exigencies of capital,as read and understood by global elites.The neo- liberal concept of control is presented as the global political project of transnationalized money capital (Van der Pijl,1988,1989;Overbeek, 1990).Just as Fordism had organized the subordination of banking and rentier capital to productive capital,neo-liberalism installs the long-term interest of transnational money-capital as the general interest of capital (Carroll,1989).In the same vein,Gill speaks of neo-constitutionalism ('the move towards the construction of legal and constitutional devices to remove or insulate substantially the new economic institutions from popular scrutiny or democratic accountability')as the legal framework of transnationalized fractions of capital(Gill,1992). Fraction-specific analyses on accumulation are as old as Marx's distinc- tions between the Bourbons and the Orleanistes in the French Legislative Assembly(Marx,1977),and as familiar as turn-of-the-century populist assaults on the power of 'international gang[s]of financial ghouls and nations-scuttlers'(Bottomley,1926).In the first instance,they always present a problem of historical investigation (Burnham,1991;Clarke, 1978).Fractions of capital-what Adam Smith called the 'different branches of the general stock of capital'(Smith,1924:250-93)-do not exist in general,and their analysis always needs to take concrete histor- ical junctures into account.In particular,it must distinguish between cliques of capital,united by a conjuncturally contingent support for particular policies(monetarism,for example);a fraction of capital,whose common material interests are incorporated in a multilayered strategy on 111 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and explanation of changes in the contemporary global political economy' (Gill, 1990a: 230), is accurate in this respect. However, the analytical litheness of open Marxism comes at a certain price, in terms of both the material picture it paints, and the politics it counsels. As a framework for the study of the present moment, the writings of open Marxism base their fluid analysis of the transnational construction of neo-liberalism on a problematic understanding of classes and fractions of classes in the world economy. Moreover, open Marxism's theorization of the articulation between accumulation and politics in the world economy is underdeveloped, and leads to an exaggerated view of the coherence of neo-liberalism. The politics of open Marxism, constrained by assumptions of an organic unity of global elites, and the political cogency of transnational concepts of control, leaves few possibilities for political organization. Neo-liberalism and transnational capital In open Marxism, political multilateralism is an extrapolation of economic multilateralism (Cox, 1991a: 13-14), and restructuring is understood as the continuation in the world of political strategy of the exigencies of capital, as read and understood by global elites. The neoliberal concept of control is presented as the global political project of transnationalized money capital (Van der Pijl, 1988, 1989; Overbeek, 1990). Just as Fordism had organized the subordination of banking and rentier capital to productive capital, neo-liberalism installs the long-term interest of transnational money-capital as the general interest of capital (Carroll, 1989). In the same vein, Gill speaks of neo-constitutionalism ('the move towards the construction of legal and constitutional devices to remove or insulate substantially the new economic institutions from popular scrutiny or democratic accountability') as the legal framework of transnationalized fractions of capital (Gill, 1992). Fraction-specific analyses on accumulation are as old as Marx's distinctions between the Bourbons and the Orl6anistes in the French Legislative Assembly (Marx, 1977), and as familiar as turn-of-the-century populist assaults on the power of 'international gang[s] of financial ghouls and nations-scuttlers' (Bottomley, 1926). In the first instance, they always present a problem of historical investigation (Burnham, 1991; Clarke, 1978). Fractions of capital - what Adam Smith called the 'different branches of the general stock of capital' (Smith, 1924: 250-93) - do not exist in general, and their analysis always needs to take concrete historical junctures into account. In particular, it must distinguish between cliques of capital, united by a conjuncturally contingent support for particular policies (monetarism, for example); a fraction of capital, whose common material interests are incorporated in a multilayered strategy on 111 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARTICLES the basis of which social compromises are struck and different notions of the general interest are contested;and a genuine collective capital,an historic bloc tied by broad material interests nurtured by a regime of regulation and expressed in particular instances and in different state policies.? From the outset,the writings of open Marxism were badly equipped to distinguish between cliques and fractions of capital.As we saw,Cox's starting point is an experiential,historically contingent definition of classes and fractions of classes: [classes]are historical realities produced by collective experience. They originated in production in previous history but transcended the specific activity of production to become human aggregates, collective ways of feeling and of acting. (Cox,1987:18) This historicism makes fractions of classes very difficult beasts to cap- ture.Kees Van der Pijl,for example,who centers his analysis of neo- liberalism on the political interest of transnationalized money capital, variously identifies fractions with references to investment strategies ('American portfolio capital',1979:5),position in the accumulation process('finance capital',p.5),business structures('the Dresdner Bank group,Thyssen',p.10),relationship with wagelabor(p.11)and political affiliations('ruling coalitions'and political parties as stands-in for frac- tions,pp.11-12).In the end,Van der Pijl has to settle for a very uncertain understanding of fractions as'ideal-type frames of references ..van- tage points from which historically specific...strategies...were developed'(1984:9).When combined with a Braudelian elite-centered micro-sociology,this fractionalization of capital on the basis of political vantage points runs the risk of overemphasizing the cohesion of a fraction on the basis of political alliances and shared institutional points of contact.This risk is evident in the way in which open Marxism has conceptualized international organizations and private transnational bodies,new political forms accompanying the internationalization of states and political authority.While states in national social formations are conceptualized as sites of class struggles(Cox,1987:19)in a manner reminiscent of Poulantzas's understanding of state as l'economique condense'(Poulantzas,1971:46),transnational political structures appear to open Marxism as an institutional manifestation of the unity of transna- tional fraction of capital (Gill,1991b for example),the voice of the transnational bloc of neo-liberal forcs leading the restructuring process, across a wide range of countries'(Gill et al.,1992:24),and a seat for the vanguard of the ruling class (Van der Pijl,1989:30). Open Marxism proposes that transnational structures of political au- thority 'represent'capital in the broad,Poulantzasian,sense of the term 112 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARTICLES the basis of which social compromises are struck and different notions of the general interest are contested; and a genuine collective capital, an historic bloc tied by broad material interests nurtured by a regime of regulation and expressed in particular instances and in different state policies.7 From the outset, the writings of open Marxism were badly equipped to distinguish between cliques and fractions of capital. As we saw, Cox's starting point is an experiential, historically contingent definition of classes and fractions of classes: [classes] are historical realities produced by collective experience. They originated in production in previous history but transcended the specific activity of production to become human aggregates, collective ways of feeling and of acting. (Cox, 1987: 18) This historicism makes fractions of classes very difficult beasts to capture. Kees Van der Pijl, for example, who centers his analysis of neoliberalism on the political interest of transnationalized money capital, variously identifies fractions with references to investment strategies ('American portfolio capital', 1979: 5), position in the accumulation process ('finance capital', p. 5), business structures ('the Dresdner Bank group', 'Thyssen', p. 10), relationship with wage labor (p. 11) and political affiliations ('ruling coalitions' and political parties as stands-in for fractions, pp. 11-12). In the end, Van der Pijl has to settle for a very uncertain understanding of fractions as 'ideal-type frames of references . . . vantage points from which historically specific ... strategies ... were developed' (1984: 9). When combined with a Braudelian elite-centered micro-sociology, this fractionalization of capital on the basis of political vantage points runs the risk of overemphasizing the cohesion of a fraction on the basis of political alliances and shared institutional points of contact. This risk is evident in the way in which open Marxism has conceptualized international organizations and private transnational bodies, new political forms accompanying the internationalization of states and political authority. While states in national social formations are conceptualized as sites of class struggles (Cox, 1987: 19) in a manner reminiscent of Poulantzas's understanding of state as 'l'economique condense' (Poulantzas, 1971: 46), transnational political structures appear to open Marxism as an institutional manifestation of the unity of transnational fraction of capital (Gill, 1991b for example), the voice of the 'transnational bloc of neo-liberal forcs leading the restructuring process, across a wide range of countries' (Gill et al., 1992: 24), and a seat for the vanguard of the ruling class (Van der Pijl, 1989: 30). Open Marxism proposes that transnational structures of political authority 'represent' capital in the broad, Poulantzasian, sense of the term. 112 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM That is to say,they not only speak on behalf of dominant factions,but also assist in the construction of the long-term interest of capital by providing a relatively autonomous 'reading'of the conditions of accumulation.This is what J.Marcus Fleming of the International Monetary Fund called the IMF's 'system of guidance'(Fleming,1975:276).In this spirit,open Marxism gives much meaning to great concords such as the Plaza and Louvres Agreements of the mid-1980s,which are seen as an expression of a politically constructed general interest (Gill and Law,1988:177-8). Episodes like Thatcherism are captured unambiguously as national manifestations of global strategies(Overbeek,1990:141-75).In the East and the West,restructuring is 'global perestroika',a revolution from above (Cox,1992:26). Yet,the process whereby systems of guidance and codes of discipline are constructed,the critical 'reading'on which so much depends,is not at all problematized in open Marxism.Rather,the political picture pre- sented by open Marxism reflects Christian Palloix's analysis of the unity of the circuits of social capital in the world economy(Van der Pijl,1989; Palloix,1975).Just as Palloix wrote of states as national landing points for international reproduction(Palloix,1977:198),open Marxism speaks of transnational strategies'applied'and 'translated'nationally(Van der Pijl, 1989:4,7),and of national politics as'contained'within parameters set by an elite reading of the conditions of accumulation(Gill et al.,1992:16). In the end,open Marxism is the political companion that Cox had sought(Cox,1981a:73)to the CEREM's study of the transnationalization of monetary and financial circuits(Michalet,1979).The political unity of transnational fractions of capital is taken as a given,and structural literacy ('clairvoyance'in Gramsci's terminology,[1971:113],and 'highly developed consciousness'for Gill [1900a:89])as the glue holding trans- national capital together.The internationalization of the state(Cox,1985: 230-3),and of political authority (Gill and Law,1988:90-1),are repres- ented as literal political expressions of the globalization of production and finance(Gill et al.,1992:8),and the unproblematized 'sociological corollary to the internationalization of capital'(Gill,1990a:37).In this context,states are but 'conduits between world-economy trends and the domestic economy...agencies to promote the carrying out of tasks they had no part in deciding'with the unambiguous task of adapting national economies to 'the perceived exigencies of the world economy'(Cox, 1991b:337). The distinction between cliques and fractions of capital can only serve as a starting point to historical analysis,having little consequence itself. However,the failure to distinguish from the start between structurally rooted fraction of capital and political cliques and alliances,is revealing of open Marxism's apriorism.The transnational unity of a neo-liberal 113 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM That is to say, they not only speak on behalf of dominant factions, but also assist in the construction of the long-term interest of capital by providing a relatively autonomous 'reading' of the conditions of accumulation. This is what J. Marcus Fleming of the International Monetary Fund called the IMF's 'system of guidance' (Fleming, 1975: 276). In this spirit, open Marxism gives much meaning to great concords such as the Plaza and Louvres Agreements of the mid-1980s, which are seen as an expression of a politically constructed general interest (Gill and Law, 1988: 177-8). Episodes like Thatcherism are captured unambiguously as national manifestations of global strategies (Overbeek, 1990: 141-75). In the East and the West, restructuring is 'global perestroika', a revolution from above (Cox, 1992: 26). Yet, the process whereby systems of guidance and codes of discipline are constructed, the critical 'reading' on which so much depends, is not at all problematized in open Marxism. Rather, the political picture presented by open Marxism reflects Christian Palloix's analysis of the unity of the circuits of social capital in the world economy (Van der Pijl, 1989; Palloix, 1975). Just as Palloix wrote of states as national landing points for international reproduction (Palloix, 1977: 198), open Marxism speaks of transnational strategies 'applied' and 'translated' nationally (Van der Pijl, 1989: 4,7), and of national politics as 'contained' within parameters set by an elite reading of the conditions of accumulation (Gill et al., 1992: 16). In the end, open Marxism is the political companion that Cox had sought (Cox, 1981a: 73) to the CEREM's study of the transnationalization of monetary and financial circuits (Michalet, 1979).8 The political unity of transnational fractions of capital is taken as a given, and structural literacy ('clairvoyance' in Gramsci's terminology, [1971: 113], and 'highly developed consciousness' for Gill [1900a: 89]) as the glue holding transnational capital together. The internationalization of the state (Cox, 1985: 230-3), and of political authority (Gill and Law, 1988: 90-1), are represented as literal political expressions of the globalization of production and finance (Gill et al., 1992: 8), and the unproblematized 'sociological corollary to the internationalization of capital' (Gill, 1990a: 37). In this context, states are but 'conduits between world-economy trends and the domestic economy . .. agencies to promote the carrying out of tasks they had no part in deciding' with the unambiguous task of adapting national economies to 'the perceived exigencies of the world economy' (Cox, 1991b: 337). The distinction between cliques and fractions of capital can only serve as a starting point to historical analysis, having little consequence itself. However, the failure to distinguish from the start between structurally rooted fraction of capital and political cliques and alliances, is revealing of open Marxism's apriorism. The transnational unity of a neo-liberal 113 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions