The last decade has witnessed a tendency for the the right to use violence to be handed into private hands. A huge private military industry is emerging which, as well as having serious effects on our daily life, exerts a destructive influence on the state and established institutions, and on the way the law is commonly understood. The main reason for this developent has been the representation of new opportunities for colonialism. The article focusses on private military companies and examines the advantages to colonialist powers of using these armies.
This paper develops a critique of the autonomist 'class struggle' theory of value. It argues that although the theory has the merit of offering a production-centred, value-form approach, it fails to grasp the determinations of value-producing labour, inverting the real relation between class struggle and value and depriving the latter of both is its historical specificity and the social and material basis of its transformative powers. Axel Kicillof & Guido Starosta
This paper identifies three defining features of globalisation that have been habitually misrepresented by the anti-globalisatin movement. first, that globalisation entails a iuniversal shift towards economc liberalisation rather than a selective liberalisation with particular disadvantage to the Thrid World. Second, the movemment bewails the erosion of traditional economic functions in Northern governments thus absolving their responibility for globalisation. Finally, the movement fails to engage with the ever-changing nature of captalism's structural search for expanding politics.
The regulation of medical work in the UK has been shaped by the post-war settlement which led to the creation of the NHS in 1948. This settlement is now being dismantled with the incresing privatisation of NHS facilities. The recommodification of medicine in Britain is achieved as part of broader patterns of neoliberal globalisation resulting in the creation of cross-border markets in health services.
This article challenges the prevailing academic account of the modernisation of pariamentary Left parties as either a pragmatic adaptation to international socioeconomic change or as a misguided accommodation to ascendent neoliberal values. Developing a neo-Granmscian perspective and using the Chilean Socialist Party and the British Labour Party as examples, the authors argue that modernisation can be more adequately conceptualised as the process by which Left parties operate withn the contemporary neoliberal historical bloc, actively contributing to the (re)production of neoliberal hegemony rather than passively reacting to it.
This argue contends that ontologically and methodologically there s no difference between the ultra-liberalism of Alchian and Demsetz and the radicalism of Bowles and Gintis. Their common neoclassical methodology results in the same conception of power as incompatible with Walrasian competition and the sole difference between them concerns the extension of power and competition in reality. Despite being 'radicals' Bowles and Gintis see competiton as natural and universal rather than as the historical product of the proces of commodication that characterises capitalism.
