Much of the Left would like to act as if nothing fundamental has changed in the way that capitalism has been operating over the last fifty years. Yes, some will acknowledge, the collapse of the USSR and the hegemony of the USA has been critical, but that seems to be where much of the analysis stops. The impact of dramatic changes in technology and, more importantly, the growing interconnections at a global level within capitalism are treated as minor tweaks to an otherwise firm system.
This interview, with noted Global Studies expert Jerry Harris, challenges this framework and is aimed at helping the reader appreciate the dramatic changes which have taken place within global capitalism and the various consequences that have unfolded, including vis a vis the nation-state, tensions among nations, and the class struggle. This will, hopefully, help us consider the implications in terms of international solidarity, struggle and organization.
With that in mind, let’s jump in.—Bill Fletcher, Jr.
1. You are one of the originators of an analysis of global capitalism which is often called the “transnational capitalist class” analysis or TCC. This framework began to rise in the early 2000s. What are the key elements of this analysis and how is it different from what preceded it?
Capitalism was established as a global system with colonialism. But it goes through historic changes. This was recognized by Lenin and other revolutionary thinkers who analyzed imperialism. Globalization is a continuation of this process. As global capitalism becomes more integrated and widespread it changed how production and finance is carried out, which changed labor conditions and the character of the capitalist class. Imperialism was a nation-centric system in which the Global South was used for resource extraction while most production was carried out in the imperialist center. International competition was mainly through the export of goods produced by national champions, promoted and protected by their national states. Today the TCC rules over global assembly lines, vast flows of capital across borders, and joint investments. This doesn’t work through protected national capital versus foreign national capital, but an integrated global financial system. For example, 40 percent of US stocks are owned by foreign investors, which mixes with US wealthy investors. This creates a capitalist class rooted in transnational relationships and accumulation, rather than their own limited national markets.
2. There are many opponents of the TCC thesis. One of the most famous was the late Samir Amin, the Egyptian Marxist known for his argument about the need for countries in the global South to “delink” from imperialism. He identified what he called the “Triad,” a bloc of the US, Western Europe, Japan, as the dominating forces of global capitalism. These seem to be the major forces of capitalism. How do you respond?
The Global South didn’t delink from imperialism, just the opposite. The anti-colonial capitalists of the Third World matured into business partners with Western imperialism. About a third of the TCC consist of multi-millionaire and billionaires from the Global South, and about a quarter of all foreign investments come from this TCC faction. Historic inequalities still exist from the old imperialist hierarchy, and so the greatest wealth is still in the Triad. The power of the US dollar as a global currency is another inequality. Old ideologies, habits, relationships, and culture don’t simply disappear. The TCC is rife with contradictions, just as national capitalist political factions and industries have competitive contradictions. Nevertheless, there is a common project to build a unified global system of capitalist penetration shared by the leading capitalists of the Triad and the TCC in the Global South. But different ideas and interests over how to accomplish it exist, and often these reflect the historic development of each country. It’s a dialectic between the old and new, the previous Western imperialist hierarchy and the new transnational relationships. Since about 1980 the process of globalization has been hegemonic, but the changing balance of forces creates ongoing contradictions.
3. Where does the existence of various imperialist powers fit into the TCC analysis? If the capitalist classes of all these states are united into a TCC, why do we see conflict between the USA, China, Russia, etc.?
First point, there is not a “united” TCC, but an internally competitive one only united around a common project. But as to the other issues you raise, there are always winners and losers in capitalism. Economic restructuring under globalization with its neoliberal policies hurt large sections of the working class. Workers in the West who had benefited from post W.W. II Keynesian social and industrial policies underwent a profound change in their living conditions. Much of the social contract was torn-up, deindustrialization meant lay-offs for millions, unions with their decent pay and benefits were undermined, inequality and insecurity grew. After the severe economic crisis of 2008 these social contradictions came to a head with a loss of legitimacy in Western governments and for ruling political parties. Mass movements erupted both to the left and right throwing neoliberalism and globalization into crisis. We are in a period now in which different blocs in the ruling class are seeking different solutions to the crisis. Essentially regaining legitimacy and stability through post-Keynesian and environmental reformism, or authoritarian stability based in the “legitimacy” of white supremacy. Within the context of this crisis contradictions between countries have reemerged because nationalism, both for the reformist and authoritarian wings, is an important tool to regain internal political and social control. But underneath all the hot rhetoric, hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investments continue. Over 6,000 US companies sued the government over Trump’s tariffs. And even when you look at Biden’s multibillion dollar subsidies to compete with China, a lot of that money is going to Taiwanese, Korean and Japanese firms. In a crisis period of shifting and competing hegemonic blocscomplexities multiply, and so tensions between national and transnational interests increase.
4.What is the role of state actors and the TCC in global capitalism, i.e., in whose interests are they operating?Does the legitimacy crisis affect them both to the same extent?
I think Lenin once spoke of state leadership as the executive board for capitalism. In other words, they hold responsibility to oversee the general stability of the system rather than the interest of any one economic sector. When a new historic hegemonic bloc becomes dominant, they begin to exert control over the state. Through the control of political power, they reengineer laws, regulations, trade rules, taxation, and so on to serve their economic needs and strategic vision. Think of the large number of new bureaucracies created in the first 100 days of the New Deal to carry forth Keynesian economic restructuring. This process aligns the politics of the state with the strategic economic needs of the capitalist system. But a disconnect occurs during a period of deep crisis, when consensus around the hegemonic bloc breaks down and there is a crisis of legitimacy. The loss of political legitimacy not only occurs among the general population, but within ruling circles also. Today the TCC wants to retain as much of their global system as possible, but they are split over how to do so. They always had tactical differences, but now they are confronting strategic political and economic questions. Some realize the excess’ of neoliberalism have created such economic inequality they are willing to renew the social contract, take advantage of Biden’s billions in green subsidies, while attempting to limit restrictions on global production and financial flows. What they term “high fences around small yards” in relationship to China.
Others believe they can ride Trump’s nationalist rhetoric to authoritarian stability, defeat the labor upsurge, and get more tax breaks. They may need to concede to some protectionists trade restrictions to keep the populist base in-line, but overall, they think a billionaire transactional president will align with their neoliberal politics and global financial desires. There is a real protectionist drive among sectors of the working class and certainly among small and mid-size business folks. Additionally, there are right-wing Congressmen whose districts have little to do with TCC interests and are ideologically committed to reactionary nationalism. Just as left social movements can extract concessions, so can right-wing populist movements. But I think the TCC is trying to figure out how to ride the tiger without being eaten. So, the basic division is over what type of social concessions are needed to maintain globalization, and how to manage protectionism. There are a lot of moving parts because neither bloc has achieved hegemony, and the balance of forces are evenly split. State and political elites are in the forefront of attempting to consolidate a social consensus that can obtain stable rule for one or the other hegemonic project. And in doing so national political concerns may become paramount over the transnational economic concerns of the TCC. But the country is so split I think we’re in for a long period of instability.
5. What is the difference between the TCC analysis and World Systems Theory? Why does it make any difference?
World Systems Theory has a lot to offer, but I think it was more relevant during the period of anti-colonial struggles following W.W. II. At that time, you could say there existed a Third World bloc opposed to imperialism that encompassed the suppressed national bourgeoise in the Global South. But that time has come and gone. Some of today’s leading World Systems theorists like Chris Chase-Dunn have focused on social movements. But too many people take the theory to divide the world into competitive blocs, i.e. the semi-peripheral and peripheral versus the imperial center. But the big capitalists of the Global South, which encompasses the semi-peripheral and peripheral, are part of the TCC. They are not compradors or subservient, they are full and powerful partners. The wealth and power of TCC members, both from the South and North, is dependent on their common relationship and integration. Furthermore, if we use class analysis, we can say there is a semi-peripheral, peripheral, and center inside each country. Oppressed national minorities in the US are in the semi-peripheral, working-class people with livable wages in the peripheral, and capitalists in the center. World Systems Theory divides the world by states rather than class. If the center oppresses the semi-peripheral based on state identity, where does that leave oppressed national minorities inside the center. Marx called on “workers of the world to unite,” but if we divide the world into blocs of competitive states, we divide the working class. That was the basis of the split between the Bolsheviks and social-democrats in W. W. I.
6. There are some on the Left who argue that the Left in the USA must concentrate on opposing “our own” bourgeoisie. From where does that assertion originate? Given your TCC analysis, how would you respond?
I think this comes from a left acceptance of the foreign relations establishment Realist School that originated with George Keenan and carried forward by Henry Kissinger and others. It has unfortunately achieved a type of ideological hegemony including many on the left. Realists, like World Systems Theory, divide the world into blocs of competing countries. The Realists take the side of US imperialism and its allies, whileLeft Realists create a bloc of anti-US countries and apply it to all international situations. This had some relevance during the era of anti-colonial struggles in the Third World. But the TCC faction, which has dominant influence in states of the Global South, doesn’t constitute an anti-US bloc. There are trillions of dollars invested between China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Mexico, Indonesia, Angola, alongside many others, with Western capital. And these are mutual investments that benefit the TCC factions in all countries. Moreover, can we consider India and China in the same bloc when their troops are killing each other on the border. Are Iran and Saudi Arabia in the same bloc when they wish for the destruction of each other. Was Brazil part of the bloc under Bolsonaro, or only under Lula. Do we support states as part of an anti-US bloc when they violently oppress mass movements, as in Belarus, Myanmar, or Iran. So yes, there are some forms of unity among Global South countries on individual issues, but there is no real consistency. That’s because the TCC are competitive capitalists with financial cross-border relationships that have nothing to do with blocs. The biggest problem with seeing the entire world through the lens of US imperialism is that it blinds people to the aggression of regional imperialism. The primary example being non-support for the independence of Ukraine under invasion by Russia, and all sorts of excuses put forth for “understanding” why the need for Russian security includes seizing foreign territory. That is right out of the Realists play book that calls for recognition of great powers, their territorial guarantees, and their zones of interest. State conflicts certainly exist and are important. And it’s important to support states when they are threatened or oppressed by other states, as with Ukraine or defending Cuba or Venezuela from US interference. But what is primary in our worldview, international class solidarity based in the unity of the Western working class and oppressed people of the Global South, or supporting one or another supposed bloc lead by various TCC factions.
Jerry Harris is national secretary of the Global Studies Association of North America, and on the international executive board of the Network for Critical Studies of Global Capitalism. He is one of the originators of transnational capitalist class analysis and his articles have often appeared in Race & Class (London), Science & Society (New York) and International Critical Thought (Beijing). He has edited 15 volumes of Perspectives on Global Developments and Technology, published over 150 articles, and is the author of The Dialectics of Globalization, Economic and Political Struggle in a Transnational World; Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Democracy; and with Carl Davidson, Cyber-Radicalism: A New Left for a Global Age. His work has been translated to Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Czech and Slovak.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a longtime socialist, trade unionist, international solidarity activist and writer.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate