Tag Archives: imperialism

S.Mavroudeas’ interview in News of PRESS TV (11-7-2020) on the trade war

I was asked for an opinion for the trade war between US and France in the News programme of PRESS TV (11-7-2020).

The videos of the interview follow below.

Also below are the main points of my intervention.



PRESS TV 11-7-2020


This last episode is part of the trade wars that are raging during the last decades

The main instigator is the US who sees its economic hegemony faltering and tries to secure its position.

The other parts retaliate.

However, the causes of these current trade wars are far deeper.

The collapse of the Eastern bloc enabled the West to instigate the ‘globalisation’, that is an era of opening the economies, removing protectionist and trade barrier and weakening the national economic policies of the less developed economies. This facilitated Western inroads in these economies. The US benefited most from this ‘globalisation’ era because of its dominance oon the financial sector. However, the ‘globalisation’ era created several contradictions for the world and western-dominated capitalist system. A number of countries (‘emerging economies’) became the manufacturing powerhouses of the global economy. Thus, slowly Western dominance is challenged.

Consequently, protectionism and trade wars were gradually implemented; particularly in the form of ‘economic sanctions’ but not only.

The eruption of the 2008 global capitalist crisis and the current coronavirus crisis shutters the ‘globalisation’ era. The crises lead to the eruption of intra-imperialist rivalries. Trade wars have become the name of the day. We have entered the ‘de-globalisation’ era. In this new era imperialist economic and military wars constitute the rule of the game.


Regarding this particular tit-for-tat between the US and France, I would not rule out a mid-term compromise between them; given that what they exchanged till now is more or less threats rather than the actual implementation of punitive measures. We have seen this also in the US-China trade war. However, the deep strategic rivalries will ultimately prevail – one way or another – and the trade war will continue anabated.


‘De-globalisation and the Return of the Theory of Imperialism’ , Stavros Mavroudeas, ICOPEC 2019










‘If Globalism is Dead—Long Live What?’

Marmara University

Istanbul, Turkey

25-28 June 2019



‘De-globalisation and the Return of the Theory of Imperialism’


Stavros Mavroudeas

Professor (Political Economy)

Dept. of Social Policy

Panteion University

e-mail: s.mavroudeas@panteion.gr

web: https://stavrosmavroudeas.wordpress.com




The globalisation hypothesis (i.e. the argument that modern capitalism has once and for all discard the nation state and modern capitalism became a truly unified ‘global village’) was overwhelmingly popular since the 1990s. This was coupled with the expansion of a multifaceted theoretical trend that rejected previous analytical tools and purported that it ushered new ones, tailor-made to the new ‘globalisation era’. Especially within Political Economy, the globalization discourse rejected the theory of Imperialism (that emphasized antagonisms and the role of the national economy) for a theory of global interconnectedness (emphasizing co-operation and deterritorialization). However, the course of events of the real world radically diverged from the stylized beliefs of the globalization discourse. Particularly, before and increasingly after the 2008 capitalist crisis, antagonisms along national lines and military conflicts proliferated. These developments signify the necessity of a return to the classical Marxist theory of Imperialism as the appropriate analytical framework to grasp the political economy of the international system.





Links for reading and downloading the presentation:








ICOPEC 2019, Marmara University: ‘De-globalisation and the Return of the Theory of Imperialism’, Stavros D. Mavroudeas














Marmara University
Göztepe Kampüsü
Küçük Çamlıca
34718 Kadıköy
İstanbul / TÜRKİYE

26 June 2019, Wednesday,

Plenary session (09:45 – 12:00)

  • Hun Joo Park (KDI School of Public Policy and Management): ‘Global Governance in the 21st Century’

  • Ziya Öniş (Department of International Relations, Koç University): ‘The Age of Hybridity: China, BRICS and Challenges of Global Governance in a Post-liberal International Order’

  • Stavros D. Mavroudeas (Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences): ‘De-globalisation and the Return of the Theory of Imperialism’

  • E. Fuat Keyman (Department of International Relations, Sabancı University):

    ‘Turkey in a Global Turmoil: Populism and Flexible Alliances’

Collapse of the European Integration ‘is on the Cards’ – Sputniknews.com 5-1-2019








Collapse of the European Integration ‘is on the Cards’ – Professor


06:06 05.01.2019

With 2019 beginning and the EU as fractured as ever, increasing scrutiny has been placed by leading economists on the bloc’s single currency the EU. Which they argue has caused more harm than good.

Sputnik spoke with Stavros Mavroudeas, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Macedonia for more insight on the issue.

Sputnik: Is the Euro a failed project?

Stavros Mavroudeas: I think the Euro overall is a problematic project. It’s not a success story; it’s actually proving to be a story of a failure. The Euro is a part of the European integration project, and this in my opinion is an imperialist project.

Imperialism meaning; at least in Marxism, that a country or bloc of countries exploits other countries economically. The European integration was inaugurated the Second World War under the auspices of the US, with the aim of securing economically and politically Western Europe, from the Soviet threat.


© Sputnik / Alexey Filippov


It changed radically after the nineteen seventy three global capitalist crisis; because by then the US supremacy faltered, and there was another time after nineteen eighty nine, when the Soviet bloc collapsed.

By then the European integration acquired greater independence from the US and even aspired to dethrone it, as the new economic capitalist superpower of the world.

The former European Monetary Union is the necessary evolution of this course of European integration, because after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, particularly its exchange rates system; that was based on the dollar and was a system of fixed exchange rates.

Once this system collapsed; and it did so because of the US under the Nixon administration withdrew from that system and acted unilaterally, then the European integration needed a currency for its common market.

They moved towards creating ultimately, after several previous failed attempts in creating the European Monetary Union, that is the Euro.


Sputnik: Would the collapse of the Euro mean the collapse of the EU?

Stavros Mavroudeas: I think that the possibility of either a collapse or a fragmentation of the European Integration and its monetary union is on the cards.

Now what would be the result of that? There are many possibilities; there would be an eruption of national rivalries and controversies, and that would be pretty bad, not only for Europe but also for the world.

Keep in mind two world wars began from Europe.

© Photo : Euro Banknote Memory


The other would be possibly the eruption and emergence of a new social movement of a progressive nature, workers movements in particular; that would change the landscape in Europe. This is I think a positive scenario and possibility.

In order to become a reality; it requires that the European Union and its monetary union would be destroyed. Both the European integration and monetary union are not mechanisms that can be reformed in a progressive way.

All attempts; even the limited ones, have failed so far and I don’ think there is any realistic possibility in these being implemented.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Stavros Mavroudeas and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.



Interview in SPUTNIK on the anniversary of the inauguration of the euro 4-1-2019

Below are the notes for my interview in SPUTNIK on the anniversary of the inauguration of the euro (4-1-2019).

The recording of the interview follows.









20 years after its inauguration, is euro a success story?


Definitely not.

Euro is part of the European integration project. This is an imperialist project. It was inaugurated after the 2nd WW under the auspices of the US with the aim of securing economically and politically the Western Europe from the Soviet threat. It involved the economic exploitation (in Marxist terms) of less developed economies by the more developed Western European ones.

As US supremacy faltered – after the 1973 global capitalist crisis – and with the demise of the Eastern bloc the European integration acquired greater independence from the US and even aspired to dethrone it and become the new economic capitalist superpower.

Euro – the EMU- is the necessary evolution of this course of the European integration. It was necessary, particularly after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the increasing unilateralism of the US, as a foundation for the European Common Market. It was also necessary, in its bid to become a major international reserve currency, as a challenger to US dollar’s supremacy.

It is indeed a problematic currency. It is a multi-state currency without a unified state behind it.

It is issued by a peculiar central bank (ECB), which has not the guarantee of a unified state behind it. ECB cannot act as lender-of-last-resort for the governments of the EMU countries. And it is only preoccupied with inflation as its mandate precludes it from considering growth.

The EMU is lacking a banking union (thus the financial system over which is ‘presiding’ is fragmented along national lines). It is also lacking a fiscal union support (in the form of a significant EU fiscal budget that could make fiscal transfers from surplus to deficit economies) in order to equilibrate trade and capital account imbalances between its member economies.

All these problems emerged after the 2008 global capitalist crisis. One of its major consequences was the eruption of the EMU crisis as several euro-periphery economies (Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus) faced severe crises (that appeared as debt crises although they have more deeper structural roots). Moreover, the whole European Union edifice is being shattered by liquidationist tendencies. Typical examples are Brexit and the growing popular discontent in many other countries with the authoritarian and austeritarian nature of the EU (that assumes both left-wing and right-wing expressions).

These disruptive tendencies within the EU are based on the deeply anti-popular nature of the EMU as it instigates austerity against the workers not only in euro-periphery but also in euro-core economies.

They are also based on the increasing divergence between its member economies and the polarization between the strong euro-core and the weak euro-periphery economies. This polarization facilitates the euro-core (as it exploits economically the euro-periphery) but at the same time increases tensions both politically and economically (as EMU cannot become an Optimal Currency Area [OCA]).

Moreover, EU’s attempt to use the 2008 crisis as a means to surpass the US and the emerging China has backfired. Whereas US and China relaxed their monetary policy and employed expanding fiscal policy in order to bypass the crisis, the EU relaxed slightly its monetary policy and almost abstained from fiscal expansion. Its aim was to ‘keep its economy in shape’ while its competitors created bubbles. Furthermore, EU aimed to take advantage of its competitors’ bubbles and keep selling to them (particularly Germany and the internationally competitive euro-core economies); thus, increasing their trade surpluses. This plan failed as its international rivals subverted it in many ways. The result is that EU – and its EMU – became the ‘big patient’ of contemporary capitalism.

Concluding, euro is failing to (a) unify the EU area and (b) to challenge the US dollar’s supremacy. Because it is a deeply anti-popular mechanism, it foments popular discontent.

Overall, the prospects of the euro are not good. I would say that the possibility of its demise or its fragmentation (e.g. a smaller area, as smaller area plus a peripheral zone of currencies tied to it) is on the table; it is a realistic scenario. Also, it is a welcome, a positive possibility. The European integration and its monetary union are antipopular mechanisms. They cannot be reformed. The successive failure of even the slightest attempts to lessen their authoritarian and austeritarian nature is indicative. Now, this demise can come either from an eruption of nationalist rivalries or through progressive and left popular movements. In the first case it is a very dangerous path. Keep in mind that two world wars have begun from nationalist and imperialist conflicts in Europe. The second case is a positive course. It represents a glimmer of hope and paves the way for changing the currently horrible European landscape.




Interview in PressTV News (1-12-2018) on the G20 Buenos Aires summit

This is another G20 summit in the current era of global turbulence

The roots of this global turbulence lay in the shaking foundations of especially Western capitalism: a severe crisis in 2008, a weak recovery, low profitability, increased exploitation of workers and middle strata

The shaking foundations of Western capitalism endanger the position of its dominant superpower, the US.

The latter proceeds aggressively to buttress its dominance: unilateralism, international aggression, protectionism and de-globalisation.

Globalisation, which was the vehicle for Western supremacy at the end of the 20th century, is no longer useful and has to be replaced.

The economic weakness and US aggression triggers similar reactions from the other Western powers but also from the new emerging poles of the world system.

G20 summits, a product of globalization, cannot paper out these conflicts. They seem, more and more, a relic of the past.

The G20 summit in Buenos Aires is characteristic. It takes place in a devastated by Western imperialism country, with a new authoritarian neoliberal government that threw again the country into the arms of its butcher, the IMF.

The G20’s agenda covers issues fraught with conflicts. Its start is marred with problems (cancellation of the Putin-Trump meeting, the Western hypocrisy regarding the murderous Saudi regime etc.). It offers a façade but cannot resolve the deep differences and conflicts.





The FYROM 2018 referendum and its implications – BRAVE NEW EUROPE 7-10-2018





Brave New Europe



The FYROM 2018 referendum and its implications

Stavros Mavroudeas


The area and the identity of Macedonia has been a contested terrain for many decades. Leaving aside references to antiquity, its modern form has its roots in the birth of national states in the Balkans in the beginning of the 20th century with the protracted collapse of the Ottoman empire. During the latter’s rule the area of Macedonia has been inhabited by various ethnic groups. In the Balkans, Greeks were the first, from the 19th century, to acquire a national identity and to construct a national state. Slavic people, in the Macedonian area, were the last to follow in this road and significant segments of them oscillated for a considerable period between different competing national identities (primarily Greek and Bulgarian). After several local wars and two world wars the Balkan area had been stabilized with established nation states that had, to a great extent, homogenized their populations by all the means available. Nevertheless, there remained several contested areas and significant ethnic minorities within every Balkan nation state.

The modern Macedonian issue was born after the 2nd WW. The northern part of the Macedonian area belonged to Titoist Yugoslavia and was inhabited mainly by Slavs. The southern Macedonian area belonged to Greece, was more or less ethnically homogenized – particularly after the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey – but also contained a Slavic ethnic minority. Before the 2nd WW the Macedonian area was claimed by Bulgaria also, by trying to patronize its Slavic populations. Yugoslavia, in order to secure its southern area – from both Greece and Bulgaria – promoted a distinct Macedonian identity for the people of its southern area. A necessary corollary of this was the promotion of irredentism as the whole Macedonian area was considered the rightful home of the Slavomacedonian people. As usually happens in such cases, the creation of a modern national identity tries to find roots in the ancient times: thus, the ridiculous Slavomacedonian claim on Alexander the Great and the ancient Macedonian kingdom that was, in the end, part of the Greek world.

On the other hand, Greece promoted its own irredentism by claiming that the whole Macedonia – and the Macedonian identity – belong to it. The internal Greek politics and particularly the Greek civil war painted in blood this project. The situation was stabilized during the Cold War era as the two main adversaries belonged to different camps. However, with the collapse of the Eastern bloc and particularly with the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia under the auspices of the Western imperialisms, the whole situation destabilized abruptly. The big Western powers (the US and the EU) strived to expand their spheres of influence in the Balkans. Local elites and emerging bourgeoisies tried to expand their spaces and maneuvered between the big players. All of them fomented nationalisms as a means for their plans.

This is exactly what happened with the small former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Once becoming separated from old Yugoslavia, it faced an acute existential problem as its miniscule political and economic size made it almost unviable. On top of that, the increase of its Albanian population endangered further its unity. This resulted in the exaggerated promotion of the Macedonian identity and the concomitant irredentism.

On the other side, Greek capitalism actually invaded economically FYROM’s and became one of the main Western economic powers in its economy. This was facilitated by FYROM’s drag in the EU’s orbit. Ironically, the bigger the political controversies between FYROM and Greece the bigger the economic influence of the latter in the former. Of course, all these under the wings and succumbing to the prevailing interests of the bigger Western powers. This resulted in a new stalemate: Greece blocked the further political integration of FYROM in the EU and NATO unless it dropped its Macedonian claims.

Recently, this stalemate became strained. The resurgence of Russia led the West to try to secure as much of the Balkan area it can under its influence. Thus, the incorporation of Montenegro, FYROM and possibly Serbia into NATO became a priority. This goes together with their incorporation in the EU (despite the increasing tensions between the US and the EU). For this reason, the West proceeds – extremely heavy-handedly and by blatantly neglecting existing political, social and national balances – to rearrange relationships and even to redraw borders in the very volatile Balkan area (which has produced several wars in the not very distant past).









The Prespes agreement between Greece and FYROM is such a case. First, the West instigated almost openly a governmental change in FYROM by marginalizing a part of its elite that was subservient to the West but at the same time wanted a better deal with Greece. Then, the West employed the weak and completely subservient to US interests SYRIZA government to pass hurriedly a settlement with FYROM. The end result is a disaster for the peoples of the Balkans. Irrespective of the technical details of the agreement which do not matter, its authoritarian imperialist imposition aggravates nationalist tensions in both countries. Of course, the West is indifferent to this so long as it passes its plans. Afterall, in the end, it can play also with local nationalisms.

But there is a problem in these imperialist games: at some point people have to vote. Such a point was the referendum in FYROM. Despite the blatant Western intervention in internal affairs and the lack of even a major political party opposing the agreement (as the FYROM elite is terribly weak, corrupted and depended from the West), the majority of the population voted with their feet and by a meagre participation actually rejected the agreement. This was a terrible slap in the face to the Western arrogance. Furthermore, it showed the rapidly diminishing charm of the EU as the sweetener of joining it (and supposedly gaining economically) was turned down. Spontaneously, the people of the poorer Balkan country have probably sensed something that the Greek people learned through pain and tears the recent years: the EU is not the paradise but the hell for the peoples and for the countries laying in its periphery.

Nevertheless, the West did not learn its lesson and proceeds with greater impertinence. All of them – big and small, from NATO’s general secretary and the German foreign ministry to the preposterous Greek SYRIZA and FYROM politicians – pronounce the referendum as a success and demanded the implementation of the agreement. Their ludicrous argument is that 91% of those voting (that were merely the 35% of the eligible voters) supported the agreement. It does not require great intelligence to grasp that this is a direct insult to the very basic rules of democracy. Wouldn’t it be better if only a few ‘enlightened elites’ and foreign agents had voting rights instead of the whole population?

Notwithstanding, the West and its local stooges proceed to try to impose the agreement. Currently, their main effort is to practically bribe and/or blackmail some corrupt FYROM MPs in order to pass it the parliament. Ironically, Alexis Tsipras suggested so; probably banking on his well-known expertise on how turning a popular vote to its opposite. As an obedient puppet of his masters, he forgets that in this case it is the turn of his government to begin rocking dangerously.

The West’s plans for the Balkans are bringing again, few years after the bloody Yugoslavian disintegration, tensions and upheaval in the area. They are fomenting nationalism and promoting imperialist conflict. The peoples of the Balkans have nothing to gain from this.

Particularly for the poor populace of FYROM – and contrary to their elites – their country’s participation in the EU and NATO would worsen its condition. These are imperialist organisations infamous for sowing misery and wars in their path. The participation in the EU would make the weak and already dependent FYROM economy even weaker. Greece, and the other euro-peripheral economies have a bitter taste from this participation that made their economies weaker and simple appendages of those of the euro-core economies. It is indicative that other Balkan economies linked to the EU were lucky not to participate at least in the European Monetary Union (EMU). This shielded them from grave consequences during and after the global capitalist crisis of 2008. Moreover, NATO is always the long arm of US aggression and its record is well-known. Instead of stabilization and peace it brings conflicts and war. Its march to the East sows gunpowder in the Balkans.

Concluding, the failure of the Western plans for the Balkans is the only way to keep the possibility of amicable and cooperative relations between the Balkan peoples alive.


World Association for Political Economy (WAPE) 2018 Forum – Berlin

The 2018 Forum of the World Association fro Political Economy (WAPE) is taking place in the Berlin School of Economics and Law (16-19/7/2018).


In this Forum I have received one of the DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY for my edited volume GREEK CAPITALISM IN CRISIS (https://www.routledge.com/Greek-Capitalism-in-Crisis-Marxist-Analyses/Mavroudeas/p/book/9781138226852)

In this WAPE Forum I also presented a paper in the Plenary Session 1 titled ‘The Marxist Theory of Imperialism:  Which way forward’.


The links for downloading my presentation are the following:




The abstract of the paper is as follows.


13th Forum of the

World Association for Political Economy

Berlin School of Economics and Law

July 16-18, 2018


‘The Marxist Theory of Imperialism:

 Which way forward’


Stavros D. Mavroudeas



The Theory of Imperialism has been the theoretical toolbox through which Marxism traditionally analyses capitalism’s international system. The very term was born after the first global capitalist crisis and the concomitant eruption of international conflicts that led to the collapse of classical liberalism’s conception of capitalism as a peace-loving and mutually beneficial international system. It was introduced by Heterodox theorists (Hobson being the more prominent among them) as an explanation of this deviation from classical liberalism’s credos. However, it was soon adopted by Marxism and thereafter it became an almost exclusively Marxist perspective. The founding block of the Marxist Theory of Imperialism is that capitalism’s international system mirrors its national system; meaning that it is also a system of exploitation. Whereas within a national economy there is exploitation of labour by capital, in the international system there is exploitation of less developed economies by the more developed ones. This conception is the direct opposite of the one adopted by Mainstream bourgeois views that maintain that capitalism’s international system is a mechanism that benefits all those participating in it. To put it in a nutshell, both older (e.g. Classical Political Economy) and newer (e.g. Neoclassicals) Mainstream bourgeois schools argue that international competition leads to mutual benefit. Heterodox bourgeois schools (e.g. Keynesianism) adopt a simplistic variation: imperialism is a deformation caused by political reasons (e.g. specific interest groups dictating neo-Mercantilist policies).

In contrast, Marxism argues that international exploitation is an organic feature of capitalism. Thus, international competition is a ‘war’ that has winners and losers. The gains of the former are the losses of the latter; so, there is no mutual benefit.

The Marxist Theory of Imperialism passed through several phases as different stylized empirical facts and analytical focal points pertained in each of these phases.

It was inaugurated by the classical Marxist debate on imperialism, conducted in the beginning of the 20th century between the currents associated with R.Hiferding, R.Luxemburg and V.I.Lenin. It subsequently evolved, after the 2nd World War, with the Dependency Theory. It fell into limbo when the ‘globalisation’ thesis predominated. And it was resurrected after the first crises of ‘globalisation’ and the failures of its discourse. Its rebirth was conditioned by formulations like the ‘New Imperialism’ thesis that argue that in contemporary capitalism imperialism has acquired a novel character. Whereas as classical capitalist imperialism was based on indirect (economic) coercion and exploitation, the ‘new imperialism’ resembles pre-capitalist imperialism where direct (violent) coercion and expropriation predominated.

This paper disputes this conception of imperialism. It argues that capitalist imperialism continues to be founded on indirect (economic) coercion and exploitation. Political and military mechanisms are necessary supports (as they are the continuation of the economy with other means) but are not the foundational mechanism. With regards to international trade, the foundational mechanism is that of unequal exchange (based on the difference of the organic composition of capitals) and competition on the basis of absolute advantage. This mechanism is complemented by similar mechanisms with regards to portfolio and foreign direct investments


The program of the Plenary Session 1 is the following.


The 13th Forum of the World Association for Political Economy


 Co-organized by

Institute for International Political Economy Berlin School of Economics and Law

Marx-Engels Stiftung Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung


Media Partner: Junge Welt

Internatioanl Critical Thought

World Review of Political Economy

 Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin, Campus Lichtenberg, Alt-Friedrichsfelde 60, 10315 Berlin

16:15-18:40 Plenary Session 1 – Audimax in Building 1


  • Hiroshi Onishi, Professor at Keio University, Japan, WAPE Vice Chair


  • Alan Freeman, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, WAPE Vice Chair
How the West was Lost
  • Jean-Claude Delaunay, WAPE Vice Chair, France
Marxism is simply the social science of our time
  • Zheng Chen, Professor Emeritus at Fujian Normal University, China
Vedio Speech
  • Dieter Klein, Professor at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung
The heritage of Karl Marx and Rosa Luxemburg – a challenge for today’s political economy
  • David Kotz, Professor at Department of Economics, University of Massachusettes Amherst, USA, WAPE Vice Chair
Economic Crisis, Authoritarian Right-Wing Nationalism, and Transformation of the State
  • Sergey Bodrunov, Director of Y. Witte Institute for New Industrial Development, President of the Free Economic Society of Russia
Karl Marx, Fourth Technological Revolution, and Noonomy
  • Stavros Mavroudeas, Professor at Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, Chair of the Greek Association for Political Economy
The Marxist Theory of Imperialism: Which Way Forward
  • Elisabetta Magnani, Professor and Head of Department of Economics, Macquarie University, Australia
Cultures of Inequality: Financialization, Labour and Social Finance


The Political Economy of the EU: an imperialist project in crisis’, IIPPE 2016

This is the presentation of my paper in IIPPE‘s (International Initiative for Promoting Political Economy) 7th Annual Conference (ISEG, Lisbon) on the nature and the crisis of the European Union.


A 20% discount offer for ‘GREEK CAPITALISM IN CRISIS’

Routledge is offering a 20% discount for «GREK CAPITALISM IN CRISIS’. Details follow.


20% discount with this flyer – Order online using discount code LRK69

*This 20% discount is only available on titles ordered directly from our website, until 31st December 2014, and cannot be combined with any other offer or discount.


Greek Capitalism in Crisis: Marxist Analyses

Edited by Stavros Mavroudeas

HB: 978-0-415-74492-8– $145.00,£85.00

With 20% Discount: $116.00, £68.00

Published: July 2014

Series: Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy

Routledge Greek Capitalism in Crisis



Despite the depth of the Greek crisis, the exorbitant burdens placed upon the working people and the massive popular resistance movement to capitalist policies, there is a definite lack of consistently Marxist analyses of the Greek problem. International debates regarding the Greek crisis have been dominated by orthodox (Neoclassical and neo-Keynesian) approaches.

The heterodox side of these debates has been occupied by Radical Political Economy approaches (usually radical post-Keynesian or Marxo-Keynesian perspectives). Moreover, they are dominated by the ‘financialisation’ thesis which is quite alien to Marxism, neglects the sphere of production and professes that the global crisis is simply a financial crisis that has nothing to do with ‘real’ accumulation and the profit rate.

This book argues that by emphasising the sphere of production and profitability, classical Marxist analysis better explains the Greek crisis than its orthodox and heterodox competitors. The contributors present critiques of the prevalent approaches and offer studies of the Greek crisis that use the methodology and the analytical and empirical tools of classical Marxist Political Economy. In particular, it is shown that the Greek crisis was caused by falling profitability and the ensuing overaccumulation crisis. The ‘broad unequal exchange’ existing between the euro-center and the euro-periphery contributed to Greek capital’s falling profitability. This book enriches the debate about the Greek economic crisis by demonstrating the insights that can be drawn by considering the Marxist alternative to the dominant mainstream and heterodox approaches.





PART I: Critiques of mainstream and heterodox analyses of the Greek problem

1. Mainstream accounts of the Greek crisis: more heat than light?

2. Fiscal crisis in Southern Europe: Whose fault?

3. Explaining the rising wage-productivity gap in the Greek economy

4. The Memoranda: a problematic strategy for Greek capitalism

5. ‘Financialisation’ and the Greek case

PART II: Marxist explanations of the Greek crisis

1. The Law of the Falling Rate of Profit and the Greek economic crisis

2. Profitability and crisis in the Greek economy (1960-2012): an investigation

3. The Greek crisis: a dual crisis of over accumulation and imperialist exploitation

PART III: Crisis, Poverty and the Labor Market

1. Economic crisis, poverty and deprivation in Greece. The impact of neoliberal remedies

2. A comparative study of the structure of employment in Greece before and after the crisis

3.Recession and atypical employment: a focus on contemporary Greek metropolitan regions



To purchase this title: http://www.routledge.com/9780415744928/


For more information, contact Beth Henderson at beth.henderson@taylorandfrancis.com, (212)216-7843

*This 20% discount is only available on titles ordered directly from our website, until 31st December 2014, and cannot be combined with any other offer or discount.